58,553 viewsJun 25, 2019, 02:00amYes, The Apollo Moon Landings Really Did HappenStarts With A BangEthan Siegel ContributorStarts With A Bang Contributor GroupScienceThe Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.

It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first set foot on anotherworld: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about these sixsuccessful landings are sometimes called into question by 'skeptics,'but the evidence that they really occurred is overwhelming.It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first set foot on anotherworld: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about these sixsuccessful landings are sometimes called into question by 'skeptics,'but the evidence that they really occurred is overwhelming. NASA / APOLLO 15

50 years ago, on July 20, 1969, humanity took our first footsteps on thesurface of another world. With Neil Armstrong's small step for a singleman, humankind took a great leap forward into the space age,demonstrating our potential for reaching other planets and extending thereach of human civilization far beyond our Earthly bonds. Generationslater, in 2019, we're still dreaming of traveling to other planets andother solar systems throughout the galaxy.

Yet there are many who proudly declare that they don't believe thathuman beings have ever left Earth. That NASA and the entire spaceprogram is nothing more than a ruse, a hoax, or a civilization-scalefraud. Like most people alive today, all six of humanity's Moon landingsoccurred before I was born. Still, I'm 100% positive they really didoccur, and we have overwhelming evidence to prove it right at ourfingertips.

This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrin plantingthe US flag on the Moon. Note the presence of footprints in theforeground. These (and other) astronaut footprints, believe it or not,are still visible today.This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrin plantingthe US flag on the Moon. Note the presence of footprints in theforeground. These (and other) astronaut footprints, believe it or not,are still visible today. NASA / APOLLO 11

1.) We can still see the evidence of the Apollo program on the Moon,even today. Here on Earth, marks that we make on our world aretemporary. Footsteps in the sand disappear after mere hours at most, asthe motions of Earth's winds will erase any coherent patterns that wecan make, and will rearrange any dunes on the same timescales. But onthe Moon, there are no oceans, no atmosphere, and no forces to shift theparticles that compose the lunar regiolith.

Whereas on Earth, we have an atmosphere, weather, liquid water, andliving species, the Moon only has the occasional weak moonquake and therare visit from an extraterrestrial impactor or, in the case ofhumanity, lander or visitor. If we truly did walk or land on the Moon,therefore, we'd expect that the evidence of our presence would stillremain today.

On Earth, footprints or other markings on the surface are onlytemporary, and are easily erased by the winds, rains, and other surfaceactivity that comes about on a world with an atmosphere, oceans, andlife. On the Moon, however, those conditions are absent, and anyalterations to the surface, even those made by humans some ~50 yearsago, should persist. GREG PROHL (L); BYRON JORJORIAN (R)

The reason is straightforward: without terrestrial phenomena that moveand rearrange the particles on our surface — without winds, rains,snows, glaciers, rockslides, etc. — the only way to rearrange solidgrains of particles are via impacts. Unless there's an event that kicksup dust, which can then migrate and settle elsewhere across the lunarsurface, any changes we've made to the Moon should remain visible on thescale of a human lifetime.

In other words, if we ever did truly land on the Moon, the telltaleevidence should still be there. All we'd have to do was return to thesites where the documented landings occurred and photograph them today.This is not simply a thought experiment, but data that was decisivelycollected years ago, when NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mapped theentire Moon's surface. The Apollo landing sites, in particular, areextremely well-documented.

Apollo 12 was the first precision landing of humans on the Moon, and weexplored a much greater amount of the lunar surface than during thefirst landing. The dark grey markings on the surface are astronautfootprints, which have stood the test of time on the Moon, as theprocesses that erase them on Earth are absent on the Moon. NASA / LRO /GSFC / ASU

The orbiter has not only photographed every single one of the Apollolanding sites, but three of them — Apollo 12, 14, and 17 — were imagedwith the orbiter's Narrow Angle Camera and annotated, clearly showcasinga variety of human-created features. By making a close pass to the lunarsurface and photographing it with the best technology that the moderninstruments LRO was equipped with could provide, the team was able toachieve resolutions as sharp as 35 cm (about 14") per pixel.

When you examine the Apollo 12 landing site, visible features include:

the physical landing site (annotated with "Intrepid Descent Stage"),the bright "L"-shaped feature near the ALSEP label (which is due tohighly reflective power cables),the Surveyor 3 probe that landed on the Moon years earlier (in 1967),and a set of grey paths that look like dried-up canals, which areactually astronaut footpaths!The Apollo 14 landing site is still intact, and our images of it inmodern times still carry the legacy of this nearly-50-years-old event.The lunar surface changes very slowly over time, and the changes we madein 1971 are still perceptible, virtually unchanged, today.

Apollo 14's landing site might be less visually spectacular, but isarguably far more famous. The module that landed on the Moon (theAntares Descent Stage) is clearly visible, as well as the ALSEPequipment, which has a different configuration but still contains thehighly reflective central power station. However, the footpaths areperhaps even more spectacular and varied, belonging to none other thanEdgar Mitchell and famed lunar golfer Alan Shepard.

Although the golf balls that he hit were never recovered, and even themost distant golf shot probably didn't quite travel for "miles andmiles" as Shepard originally claimed, we can absolutely see the evidenceof the astronauts' presence. It may be nearly 50 years later, butbecause the Moon is an airless world with few disturbances, humanity'sfootprints have not yet been erased.

A photograph from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the landing site ofApollo 17. The tracks of the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) can be clearlyseen, as can the vehicle itself.

But compared to these earlier missions, the evidence that's stillvisible from Apollo 17 is nothing short of spectacular. At thisincredibly high resolution, expansive traveling paths and equipmentremnants left on the lunar surface are unmistakable, courtesy of thelast humans to walk on the Moon: Eugene "Gene" Cernan and Harrison"Jack" Schmitt.

You can still see the descent module and the ALSEP equipment, but thefootpaths appear far, far greater in scale and consist of two paralleltracks, plus there's a bright spot labeled "LRV" in addition. Why?Because the final three Apollo missions contained an Apollo Lunar Rovingvehicle! Its tracks are distinctly different from footprints, and itenabled astronauts to explore much greater distances on the lunarsurface. The tracks from the LRV extend for over 22 miles in total,reaching five miles away from the landing site and extending far beyondthis image.

2.) We have extensive photographic and video evidence from the Apollomissions themselves. How could the lunar module have ascended back offof the surface and returned the astronauts back to the orbiting modulewhich would take them back to Earth? Exactly like the video above shows,from direct Apollo 17 footage. The hypergolic propellant system isn'tbased off of a single explosion, but rather a constant thrust of ~16,000Newtons that was steadily delivered over a timespan of about 5 minutes.There's no exhaust trail because there's no lunar atmosphere, but youcan track the spacecraft's accelerated motion for yourself with evenbasic modern software.

This is enough force to launch the ascent stage upwards, increasing itsspeed by about 2,000-3,000 meters-per-second. This is enough to enterlunar orbit and dock with the command and service module, but not enoughto escape lunar orbit. This is why every lunar module, after returningthe astronauts, crash-landed on the lunar surface. The locations of thelunar modules of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17 are all known, and the impactsites (along with the ejecta) are again visible in the LRO data.

Here, the dark marks that fan out and appear to spray across the lunarsurface all originate from a single darker point or smudge. This is thetelltale sign of a recent impact, and the four identified locationswhere features such as this occur are consistent with the four sitesthat correspond to the crash-landing of the lunar ascent stages ofApollo 12, 14, 15, and 17. Apollo 11's and 16's locations have stillnever been determined.

But there's even more evidence than that: there are thousands of photostaken by Apollo astronauts documenting the entire program. Years ago,NASA released all the photos of the twelve Apollo missions that made itto space on a publicly available Flickr photostream, sorted into aseries of incredible albums by mission. Some of the greatest, mosteye-opening photos, stories and quotes originated from the astronautswho journeyed on those trips.

Apollo 10, known as the 'dress rehearsal' for the Moon landing, wasactually equipped with all the apparatuses that would have allowed themto land on the lunar surface themselves. They came closer to the Moonthan any previous crewed mission, and paved the way for the actual moonlanding which took place with Apollo 11 in July of 1969.

Traveling through the atmosphere, both exiting the Earth andre-entering, sound horrifying and harrowing according to Apollo 8's BillAnders, who descriped it as follows:

You could see the flames and the outer skin of the spacecraft glowing;and burning, baseball-size chunks flying off behind us. It was an eeriefeeling, like being a gnat inside a blowtorch flame.

Although there is no way to prove that these photos and videos weren'tfaked, the technology and data to do so didn't exist at the time.Somehow, it all lines up with the full suite of improved data we'vecollected in the half-century since we last visited the Moon.

Some of the deployed scientific equipment taken to the Moon during theApollo 12 mission, where the installation and operation of thisequipment was well-documented both remotely and in situ by theastronauts who installed it.

3.) The scientific instruments left there returned years of valuabledata, and some are still in use today. The Apollo missions weren'tsimply publicity stunts; they were the pinnacle of human exploration ofanother world. From the very first crewed mission to land on the lunarsurface, we sent up a large suite of scientific instruments to installon the lunar surface and measure its properties.

Some of the more famous ones are listed below.

Lunar seismometers, which were installed by Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, and16, which transmitted data about the Moon's seismic activity andmoonquakes until the final station failed in 1977.

The lunar laser ranging retroreflector arrays, which remain operationaleven today, enable us to reflect lasers off of the reflective surfacesinstalled by the Apollo 11, 14, and 15 crews, as well as the SovietLunokhod 2 rover, to measure the Earth-Moon distance to precisions ofapproximately 1 centimeter.

The lunar laser ranging facility at Goddard, as shown here, enables usto track the lunar distance from Earth to ~centimeter accuracy. Theearliest laser reflectors were installed on the Moon's surface as partof the Apollo program, and they remain in service today. The alignmentbetween the predicted and observed distances of the Moon over time isone of science's great accomplishments in our understanding of gravity.

The SWC (solar wind composition) experiment taught us what the flux, andcomposition of solar wind particles that reach the Moon's surface are,since there's neither atmosphere nor a magnetic field nor Van Allenbelts to interfere with the received particles on the Moon.

The SWS (solar wind spectrum) experiment did exactly the same thing,except for the energy spectrum of the solar wind particles, rather thanthe composition measured by the SWC experiment.

The LSM (lunar surface magnetometer) experiment was designed to measurethe lunar magnetic field, determining that the Moon does in fact havemagnetized features on the surface, but that the magnetism is notuniform across the Moon. Unlike Earth, we now know there is no coherentmagnetic field powered by an active core on the Moon.

The LDD (lunar dust detector) experiment was initially installed tomeasure how solar panels degraded due to lunar dust deposited from theascent stage and other, subsequent sources. The experiments performed bythe Apollo program showed that we vastly overestimated dust deposits,and instead enabled us to accurately measure the effects of depositedlunar dust.

An Apollo 14 astronaut deploys the Apollo Lunar Surface ExperimentsPackage's power source (foreground) and "Central Station" (background),where the Lunar Dust Detector was mounted. In 2012, the data from Apollo14's and 15's LDD experiment was restored and digitized, enablingscientists to perform the first long-term analysis of lunar dust deposition.

Each Apollo mission was outfitted with an array of experiments toinstall and perform on the lunar surface. This is what the ALSEPpackage, which stands for Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package, wasdesigned to do. The results from these experiments agree with oneanother and with the data collected from both previous and subsequentexperiments designed to measure a variety of properties of the Sun,Earth, Moon, and their interplay.

The fact that we have the data from these experiments, and that many ofthem (and their successors on later Apollo missions and lunar landermissions) are still operational or otherwise in use today, provide uswith extremely strong evidence that we did, in fact, land on the Moon.

This image, from January 31, 1971, shows sunrise from Alan Shepard's 12o'clock pan taken near the Lunar Module at the start of EVA-1(moonwalk). Without the Sun glare, we can see some detail on theCone-Crater ridge. The flag, S-Band antenna, ladder, and the LRRR (LaserRanging Retroreflector) are all located in the west footpad. The MET(Modular Equipment Transporter) has not been deployed and is stillfolded up on the MESA (Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly).

4.) We have returned and analyzed samples from the Moon, learningunprecedented amounts about lunar geology and the Moon's history in theprocess. One of the primary goals of the Apollo mission was to collectrocks from the lunar surface and return them to Earth for laboratoryanalysis.

Through this endeavor, we learned that the Moon and Earth, based on theisotope ratios of the elements present, likely share a common origin,which was likely caused by a cataclysmic impact approximately 50 millionyears after the formation of the Solar System. Originally formulated asthe Giant Impact Hypothesis, this has now evolved to describe a new typeof structure called a synestia, which generalized the Giant Impactscenario to better describe the full suite of observables. Without theApollo missions, we might never have uncovered the critical evidencesupporting this scenario.

A synestia will consist of a mixture of vaporized material from bothproto-Earth and the impactor, which forms a large moon inside of it fromthe coalescence of moonlets. This is a general scenario capable ofcreating one single, large moon with the physical and chemicalproperties we observe ours to have.S. J. LOCK ET AL., J. GEOPHYS RESEARCH, 123, 4 (2018), P. 910-951

But there wasn't just a single mission, and the various Apollo missionslanded at different sites, enabling us to sample the properties of thelunar soil at a variety of locations. The final two astronauts to everwalk on the Moon, Cernan and Schmitt, ran into quite a surprise whenthey did. Schmitt, the lone civilian-astronaut (and only scientist) totravel to the Moon, was often described as the most business-like of allthe astronauts. Which is why it must have been such a shock to hear himexclaim the following:

Oh, hey! Wait a minute… THERE IS ORANGE SOIL! It’s all over! I stirredit up with my feet!

The dull, grey lunar soil you’re used to seeing — that we’re all used toseeing — in one particular spot was only a very thin veneer, covering arich, orange landscape beneath.

The orange soil, at the lower right of the image, really stands out whencompared to the colorations visible on the rest of the Moon. Apollo 17,perhaps because they had a geoscientist as one of their moonwalkers, wasable to spot this geological oddity that taught us so much about theMoon's origin and composition.

Like any good scientist, or any good explorer, for that matter, Cernanand Schmitt took pictures, collected data, and brought samples back toEarth for further analysis. What could cause orange soil on the Moon,perhaps the most featureless of all the large, airless rocks in ourSolar System?

What the analysis back on Earth revealed was fantastic: this wasvolcanic glass. What occurred was that molten lava from the interior ofthe Moon erupted, some 3 to 4 billion years ago, up above the airlesssurface and into the vacuum of space. As the lava became exposed to thevacuum, it separated out into tiny fragments and froze, forming tinybeads of volcanic glass in orange and black colors. (The tin in some ofthe fragments is what gives the orange color.)

Olivine inclusions found in lunar samples have a spectacularly highwater concentration of 1,200 ppm. This is remarkable, because it's thesame exact concentration as the water found in terrestrial (Earth-based)olivine inclusions, pointing to a common origin for the Earth and the Moon.E.H. HAURI ET AL., SCIENCE. 2011 JUL 8;333(6039):213–5

In 2011, reanalysis of those samples found evidence that water wasincluded in the volcanic eruption: with concentrations of water in theglass beads that were formed 50 times as great as the expected drynessof the Moon.

Olivine inclusions showed water present in concentrations up to 1,200parts-per-million. Most remarkably, the lunar samples we've found haveindicated that Earth and the Moon have a common origin, consistent witha giant impact that occurred only a few tens of millions of years intothe birth of our Solar System. Without direct samples, obtained by theApollo missions and brought back to Earth, we never would have been ableto draw such a startling, but spectacular, conclusion.

A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or 'mug shot'of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parentboulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder, allowingfor study of the type and rate of erosion acting on lunar rocks.A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or 'mug shot'of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parentboulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder, allowingfor study of the type and rate of erosion acting on lunar rocks. AFP /GETTY IMAGESThere are many different lines of evidence that point to humanity'spresence on the Moon. We landed there and can see the evidence,directly, when we look with the appropriate resolution. We haveextraordinary amounts of evidence, ranging from eyewitness testimony tothe data record tracking the missions to photographs documenting thetrips, all supporting the fact that we landed and walked on the lunarsurface. We have a slew of scientific instruments that were installed,took data, and a few of which can still be seen and used today. Andfinally, we've brought back lunar samples and learned about the Moon'shistory, composition, and likely origin from it.

If you choose to be a doubter, that's your call: no one can take yourown freedom of choice away from you. But if you follow the evidence, andthat's what science compels us to do, the only doubts that remain arecompletely unreasonable. We really did land on the Moon, and this is thescience to back it up!

Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here.Ethan SiegelEthan Siegel ContributorI am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and science communicator, whoprofesses physics and astronomy at various colleges. I have won numerousawards for science writing si... Read MoreStarts With A BangStarts With A Bang Contributor GroupStarts With A Bang is dedicated to exploring the story of what we knowabout the Universe as well as how we know it, with a focus on physics,astronomy, and the scientif... Read More

Post by a425couplefromhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/25/yes-the-apollo-moon-landings-really-did-happen/#209129b56a8f58,553 viewsJun 25, 2019, 02:00amYes, The Apollo Moon Landings Really Did HappenStarts With A BangEthan Siegel ContributorStarts With A Bang Contributor GroupScienceThe Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first set foot on anotherworld: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about these sixsuccessful landings are sometimes called into question by 'skeptics,'but the evidence that they really occurred is overwhelming.It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first set foot on anotherworld: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about these sixsuccessful landings are sometimes called into question by 'skeptics,'but the evidence that they really occurred is overwhelming. NASA / APOLLO 1550 years ago, on July 20, 1969, humanity took our first footsteps on thesurface of another world. With Neil Armstrong's small step for a singleman, humankind took a great leap forward into the space age,demonstrating our potential for reaching other planets and extending thereach of human civilization far beyond our Earthly bonds. Generationslater, in 2019, we're still dreaming of traveling to other planets andother solar systems throughout the galaxy.Yet there are many who proudly declare that they don't believe thathuman beings have ever left Earth. That NASA and the entire spaceprogram is nothing more than a ruse, a hoax, or a civilization-scalefraud. Like most people alive today, all six of humanity's Moon landingsoccurred before I was born. Still, I'm 100% positive they really didoccur, and we have overwhelming evidence to prove it right at ourfingertips.This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrin plantingthe US flag on the Moon. Note the presence of footprints in theforeground. These (and other) astronaut footprints, believe it or not,are still visible today.This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrin plantingthe US flag on the Moon. Note the presence of footprints in theforeground. These (and other) astronaut footprints, believe it or not,are still visible today. NASA / APOLLO 111.) We can still see the evidence of the Apollo program on the Moon,even today. Here on Earth, marks that we make on our world aretemporary. Footsteps in the sand disappear after mere hours at most, asthe motions of Earth's winds will erase any coherent patterns that wecan make, and will rearrange any dunes on the same timescales. But onthe Moon, there are no oceans, no atmosphere, and no forces to shift theparticles that compose the lunar regiolith.Whereas on Earth, we have an atmosphere, weather, liquid water, andliving species, the Moon only has the occasional weak moonquake and therare visit from an extraterrestrial impactor or, in the case ofhumanity, lander or visitor. If we truly did walk or land on the Moon,therefore, we'd expect that the evidence of our presence would stillremain today.On Earth, footprints or other markings on the surface are onlytemporary, and are easily erased by the winds, rains, and other surfaceactivity that comes about on a world with an atmosphere, oceans, andlife. On the Moon, however, those conditions are absent, and anyalterations to the surface, even those made by humans some ~50 yearsago, should persist. GREG PROHL (L); BYRON JORJORIAN (R)The reason is straightforward: without terrestrial phenomena that moveand rearrange the particles on our surface — without winds, rains,snows, glaciers, rockslides, etc. — the only way to rearrange solidgrains of particles are via impacts. Unless there's an event that kicksup dust, which can then migrate and settle elsewhere across the lunarsurface, any changes we've made to the Moon should remain visible on thescale of a human lifetime.In other words, if we ever did truly land on the Moon, the telltaleevidence should still be there. All we'd have to do was return to thesites where the documented landings occurred and photograph them today.This is not simply a thought experiment, but data that was decisivelycollected years ago, when NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mapped theentire Moon's surface. The Apollo landing sites, in particular, areextremely well-documented.Apollo 12 was the first precision landing of humans on the Moon, and weexplored a much greater amount of the lunar surface than during thefirst landing. The dark grey markings on the surface are astronautfootprints, which have stood the test of time on the Moon, as theprocesses that erase them on Earth are absent on the Moon. NASA / LRO /GSFC / ASUThe orbiter has not only photographed every single one of the Apollolanding sites, but three of them — Apollo 12, 14, and 17 — were imagedwith the orbiter's Narrow Angle Camera and annotated, clearly showcasinga variety of human-created features. By making a close pass to the lunarsurface and photographing it with the best technology that the moderninstruments LRO was equipped with could provide, the team was able toachieve resolutions as sharp as 35 cm (about 14") per pixel.the physical landing site (annotated with "Intrepid Descent Stage"),the bright "L"-shaped feature near the ALSEP label (which is due tohighly reflective power cables),the Surveyor 3 probe that landed on the Moon years earlier (in 1967),and a set of grey paths that look like dried-up canals, which areactually astronaut footpaths!The Apollo 14 landing site is still intact, and our images of it inmodern times still carry the legacy of this nearly-50-years-old event.The lunar surface changes very slowly over time, and the changes we madein 1971 are still perceptible, virtually unchanged, today.Apollo 14's landing site might be less visually spectacular, but isarguably far more famous. The module that landed on the Moon (theAntares Descent Stage) is clearly visible, as well as the ALSEPequipment, which has a different configuration but still contains thehighly reflective central power station. However, the footpaths areperhaps even more spectacular and varied, belonging to none other thanEdgar Mitchell and famed lunar golfer Alan Shepard.Although the golf balls that he hit were never recovered, and even themost distant golf shot probably didn't quite travel for "miles andmiles" as Shepard originally claimed, we can absolutely see the evidenceof the astronauts' presence. It may be nearly 50 years later, butbecause the Moon is an airless world with few disturbances, humanity'sfootprints have not yet been erased.A photograph from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the landing site ofApollo 17. The tracks of the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) can be clearlyseen, as can the vehicle itself.But compared to these earlier missions, the evidence that's stillvisible from Apollo 17 is nothing short of spectacular. At thisincredibly high resolution, expansive traveling paths and equipmentremnants left on the lunar surface are unmistakable, courtesy of thelast humans to walk on the Moon: Eugene "Gene" Cernan and Harrison"Jack" Schmitt.You can still see the descent module and the ALSEP equipment, but thefootpaths appear far, far greater in scale and consist of two paralleltracks, plus there's a bright spot labeled "LRV" in addition. Why?Because the final three Apollo missions contained an Apollo Lunar Rovingvehicle! Its tracks are distinctly different from footprints, and itenabled astronauts to explore much greater distances on the lunarsurface. The tracks from the LRV extend for over 22 miles in total,reaching five miles away from the landing site and extending far beyondthis image.2.) We have extensive photographic and video evidence from the Apollomissions themselves. How could the lunar module have ascended back offof the surface and returned the astronauts back to the orbiting modulewhich would take them back to Earth? Exactly like the video above shows,from direct Apollo 17 footage. The hypergolic propellant system isn'tbased off of a single explosion, but rather a constant thrust of ~16,000Newtons that was steadily delivered over a timespan of about 5 minutes.There's no exhaust trail because there's no lunar atmosphere, but youcan track the spacecraft's accelerated motion for yourself with evenbasic modern software.This is enough force to launch the ascent stage upwards, increasing itsspeed by about 2,000-3,000 meters-per-second. This is enough to enterlunar orbit and dock with the command and service module, but not enoughto escape lunar orbit. This is why every lunar module, after returningthe astronauts, crash-landed on the lunar surface. The locations of thelunar modules of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17 are all known, and the impactsites (along with the ejecta) are again visible in the LRO data.Here, the dark marks that fan out and appear to spray across the lunarsurface all originate from a single darker point or smudge. This is thetelltale sign of a recent impact, and the four identified locationswhere features such as this occur are consistent with the four sitesthat correspond to the crash-landing of the lunar ascent stages ofApollo 12, 14, 15, and 17. Apollo 11's and 16's locations have stillnever been determined.But there's even more evidence than that: there are thousands of photostaken by Apollo astronauts documenting the entire program. Years ago,NASA released all the photos of the twelve Apollo missions that made itto space on a publicly available Flickr photostream, sorted into aseries of incredible albums by mission. Some of the greatest, mosteye-opening photos, stories and quotes originated from the astronautswho journeyed on those trips.Apollo 10, known as the 'dress rehearsal' for the Moon landing, wasactually equipped with all the apparatuses that would have allowed themto land on the lunar surface themselves. They came closer to the Moonthan any previous crewed mission, and paved the way for the actual moonlanding which took place with Apollo 11 in July of 1969.Traveling through the atmosphere, both exiting the Earth andre-entering, sound horrifying and harrowing according to Apollo 8's BillYou could see the flames and the outer skin of the spacecraft glowing;and burning, baseball-size chunks flying off behind us. It was an eeriefeeling, like being a gnat inside a blowtorch flame.Although there is no way to prove that these photos and videos weren'tfaked, the technology and data to do so didn't exist at the time.Somehow, it all lines up with the full suite of improved data we'vecollected in the half-century since we last visited the Moon.Some of the deployed scientific equipment taken to the Moon during theApollo 12 mission, where the installation and operation of thisequipment was well-documented both remotely and in situ by theastronauts who installed it.3.) The scientific instruments left there returned years of valuabledata, and some are still in use today. The Apollo missions weren'tsimply publicity stunts; they were the pinnacle of human exploration ofanother world. From the very first crewed mission to land on the lunarsurface, we sent up a large suite of scientific instruments to installon the lunar surface and measure its properties.Some of the more famous ones are listed below.Lunar seismometers, which were installed by Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, and16, which transmitted data about the Moon's seismic activity andmoonquakes until the final station failed in 1977.The lunar laser ranging retroreflector arrays, which remain operationaleven today, enable us to reflect lasers off of the reflective surfacesinstalled by the Apollo 11, 14, and 15 crews, as well as the SovietLunokhod 2 rover, to measure the Earth-Moon distance to precisions ofapproximately 1 centimeter.The lunar laser ranging facility at Goddard, as shown here, enables usto track the lunar distance from Earth to ~centimeter accuracy. Theearliest laser reflectors were installed on the Moon's surface as partof the Apollo program, and they remain in service today. The alignmentbetween the predicted and observed distances of the Moon over time isone of science's great accomplishments in our understanding of gravity.The SWC (solar wind composition) experiment taught us what the flux, andcomposition of solar wind particles that reach the Moon's surface are,since there's neither atmosphere nor a magnetic field nor Van Allenbelts to interfere with the received particles on the Moon.The SWS (solar wind spectrum) experiment did exactly the same thing,except for the energy spectrum of the solar wind particles, rather thanthe composition measured by the SWC experiment.The LSM (lunar surface magnetometer) experiment was designed to measurethe lunar magnetic field, determining that the Moon does in fact havemagnetized features on the surface, but that the magnetism is notuniform across the Moon. Unlike Earth, we now know there is no coherentmagnetic field powered by an active core on the Moon.The LDD (lunar dust detector) experiment was initially installed tomeasure how solar panels degraded due to lunar dust deposited from theascent stage and other, subsequent sources. The experiments performed bythe Apollo program showed that we vastly overestimated dust deposits,and instead enabled us to accurately measure the effects of depositedlunar dust.An Apollo 14 astronaut deploys the Apollo Lunar Surface ExperimentsPackage's power source (foreground) and "Central Station" (background),where the Lunar Dust Detector was mounted. In 2012, the data from Apollo14's and 15's LDD experiment was restored and digitized, enablingscientists to perform the first long-term analysis of lunar dust deposition.Each Apollo mission was outfitted with an array of experiments toinstall and perform on the lunar surface. This is what the ALSEPpackage, which stands for Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package, wasdesigned to do. The results from these experiments agree with oneanother and with the data collected from both previous and subsequentexperiments designed to measure a variety of properties of the Sun,Earth, Moon, and their interplay.The fact that we have the data from these experiments, and that many ofthem (and their successors on later Apollo missions and lunar landermissions) are still operational or otherwise in use today, provide uswith extremely strong evidence that we did, in fact, land on the Moon.This image, from January 31, 1971, shows sunrise from Alan Shepard's 12o'clock pan taken near the Lunar Module at the start of EVA-1(moonwalk). Without the Sun glare, we can see some detail on theCone-Crater ridge. The flag, S-Band antenna, ladder, and the LRRR (LaserRanging Retroreflector) are all located in the west footpad. The MET(Modular Equipment Transporter) has not been deployed and is stillfolded up on the MESA (Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly).4.) We have returned and analyzed samples from the Moon, learningunprecedented amounts about lunar geology and the Moon's history in theprocess. One of the primary goals of the Apollo mission was to collectrocks from the lunar surface and return them to Earth for laboratoryanalysis.Through this endeavor, we learned that the Moon and Earth, based on theisotope ratios of the elements present, likely share a common origin,which was likely caused by a cataclysmic impact approximately 50 millionyears after the formation of the Solar System. Originally formulated asthe Giant Impact Hypothesis, this has now evolved to describe a new typeof structure called a synestia, which generalized the Giant Impactscenario to better describe the full suite of observables. Without theApollo missions, we might never have uncovered the critical evidencesupporting this scenario.A synestia will consist of a mixture of vaporized material from bothproto-Earth and the impactor, which forms a large moon inside of it fromthe coalescence of moonlets. This is a general scenario capable ofcreating one single, large moon with the physical and chemicalproperties we observe ours to have.S. J. LOCK ET AL., J. GEOPHYS RESEARCH, 123, 4 (2018), P. 910-951But there wasn't just a single mission, and the various Apollo missionslanded at different sites, enabling us to sample the properties of thelunar soil at a variety of locations. The final two astronauts to everwalk on the Moon, Cernan and Schmitt, ran into quite a surprise whenthey did. Schmitt, the lone civilian-astronaut (and only scientist) totravel to the Moon, was often described as the most business-like of allthe astronauts. Which is why it must have been such a shock to hear himOh, hey! Wait a minute… THERE IS ORANGE SOIL! It’s all over! I stirredit up with my feet!The dull, grey lunar soil you’re used to seeing — that we’re all used toseeing — in one particular spot was only a very thin veneer, covering arich, orange landscape beneath.The orange soil, at the lower right of the image, really stands out whencompared to the colorations visible on the rest of the Moon. Apollo 17,perhaps because they had a geoscientist as one of their moonwalkers, wasable to spot this geological oddity that taught us so much about theMoon's origin and composition.Like any good scientist, or any good explorer, for that matter, Cernanand Schmitt took pictures, collected data, and brought samples back toEarth for further analysis. What could cause orange soil on the Moon,perhaps the most featureless of all the large, airless rocks in ourSolar System?What the analysis back on Earth revealed was fantastic: this wasvolcanic glass. What occurred was that molten lava from the interior ofthe Moon erupted, some 3 to 4 billion years ago, up above the airlesssurface and into the vacuum of space. As the lava became exposed to thevacuum, it separated out into tiny fragments and froze, forming tinybeads of volcanic glass in orange and black colors. (The tin in some ofthe fragments is what gives the orange color.)Olivine inclusions found in lunar samples have a spectacularly highwater concentration of 1,200 ppm. This is remarkable, because it's thesame exact concentration as the water found in terrestrial (Earth-based)olivine inclusions, pointing to a common origin for the Earth and the Moon.E.H. HAURI ET AL., SCIENCE. 2011 JUL 8;333(6039):213–5In 2011, reanalysis of those samples found evidence that water wasincluded in the volcanic eruption: with concentrations of water in theglass beads that were formed 50 times as great as the expected drynessof the Moon.Olivine inclusions showed water present in concentrations up to 1,200parts-per-million. Most remarkably, the lunar samples we've found haveindicated that Earth and the Moon have a common origin, consistent witha giant impact that occurred only a few tens of millions of years intothe birth of our Solar System. Without direct samples, obtained by theApollo missions and brought back to Earth, we never would have been ableto draw such a startling, but spectacular, conclusion.A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or 'mug shot'of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parentboulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder, allowingfor study of the type and rate of erosion acting on lunar rocks.A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or 'mug shot'of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parentboulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder, allowingfor study of the type and rate of erosion acting on lunar rocks. AFP /GETTY IMAGESThere are many different lines of evidence that point to humanity'spresence on the Moon. We landed there and can see the evidence,directly, when we look with the appropriate resolution. We haveextraordinary amounts of evidence, ranging from eyewitness testimony tothe data record tracking the missions to photographs documenting thetrips, all supporting the fact that we landed and walked on the lunarsurface. We have a slew of scientific instruments that were installed,took data, and a few of which can still be seen and used today. Andfinally, we've brought back lunar samples and learned about the Moon'shistory, composition, and likely origin from it.If you choose to be a doubter, that's your call: no one can take yourown freedom of choice away from you. But if you follow the evidence, andthat's what science compels us to do, the only doubts that remain arecompletely unreasonable. We really did land on the Moon, and this is thescience to back it up!Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here.Ethan SiegelEthan Siegel ContributorI am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and science communicator, whoprofesses physics and astronomy at various colleges. I have won numerousawards for science writing si... Read MoreStarts With A BangStarts With A Bang Contributor GroupStarts With A Bang is dedicated to exploring the story of what we knowabout the Universe as well as how we know it, with a focus on physics,astronomy, and the scientif... Read More

My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbelief that anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I did come across somebody who told me it could very well have been a hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people have measured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon by astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.

Post by a425couplefromhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/25/yes-the-apollo-moon-landings-really-did-happen/#209129b56a8f58,553 viewsJun 25, 2019, 02:00amYes, The Apollo Moon Landings Really Did HappenStarts With A BangEthan Siegel ContributorStarts With A Bang Contributor GroupScienceThe Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first set foot on anotherworld: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about these sixsuccessful landings are sometimes called into question by 'skeptics,'but the evidence that they really occurred is overwhelming.It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first set foot on anotherworld: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about these sixsuccessful landings are sometimes called into question by 'skeptics,'but the evidence that they really occurred is overwhelming. NASA / APOLLO 1550 years ago, on July 20, 1969, humanity took our first footsteps on thesurface of another world. With Neil Armstrong's small step for a singleman, humankind took a great leap forward into the space age,demonstrating our potential for reaching other planets and extending thereach of human civilization far beyond our Earthly bonds. Generationslater, in 2019, we're still dreaming of traveling to other planets andother solar systems throughout the galaxy.Yet there are many who proudly declare that they don't believe thathuman beings have ever left Earth. That NASA and the entire spaceprogram is nothing more than a ruse, a hoax, or a civilization-scalefraud. Like most people alive today, all six of humanity's Moon landingsoccurred before I was born. Still, I'm 100% positive they really didoccur, and we have overwhelming evidence to prove it right at ourfingertips.This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrin plantingthe US flag on the Moon. Note the presence of footprints in theforeground. These (and other) astronaut footprints, believe it or not,are still visible today.This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrin plantingthe US flag on the Moon. Note the presence of footprints in theforeground. These (and other) astronaut footprints, believe it or not,are still visible today. NASA / APOLLO 111.) We can still see the evidence of the Apollo program on the Moon,even today. Here on Earth, marks that we make on our world aretemporary. Footsteps in the sand disappear after mere hours at most, asthe motions of Earth's winds will erase any coherent patterns that wecan make, and will rearrange any dunes on the same timescales. But onthe Moon, there are no oceans, no atmosphere, and no forces to shift theparticles that compose the lunar regiolith.Whereas on Earth, we have an atmosphere, weather, liquid water, andliving species, the Moon only has the occasional weak moonquake and therare visit from an extraterrestrial impactor or, in the case ofhumanity, lander or visitor. If we truly did walk or land on the Moon,therefore, we'd expect that the evidence of our presence would stillremain today.On Earth, footprints or other markings on the surface are onlytemporary, and are easily erased by the winds, rains, and other surfaceactivity that comes about on a world with an atmosphere, oceans, andlife. On the Moon, however, those conditions are absent, and anyalterations to the surface, even those made by humans some ~50 yearsago, should persist. GREG PROHL (L); BYRON JORJORIAN (R)The reason is straightforward: without terrestrial phenomena that moveand rearrange the particles on our surface — without winds, rains,snows, glaciers, rockslides, etc. — the only way to rearrange solidgrains of particles are via impacts. Unless there's an event that kicksup dust, which can then migrate and settle elsewhere across the lunarsurface, any changes we've made to the Moon should remain visible on thescale of a human lifetime.In other words, if we ever did truly land on the Moon, the telltaleevidence should still be there. All we'd have to do was return to thesites where the documented landings occurred and photograph them today.This is not simply a thought experiment, but data that was decisivelycollected years ago, when NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mapped theentire Moon's surface. The Apollo landing sites, in particular, areextremely well-documented.Apollo 12 was the first precision landing of humans on the Moon, and weexplored a much greater amount of the lunar surface than during thefirst landing. The dark grey markings on the surface are astronautfootprints, which have stood the test of time on the Moon, as theprocesses that erase them on Earth are absent on the Moon. NASA / LRO /GSFC / ASUThe orbiter has not only photographed every single one of the Apollolanding sites, but three of them — Apollo 12, 14, and 17 — were imagedwith the orbiter's Narrow Angle Camera and annotated, clearly showcasinga variety of human-created features. By making a close pass to the lunarsurface and photographing it with the best technology that the moderninstruments LRO was equipped with could provide, the team was able toachieve resolutions as sharp as 35 cm (about 14") per pixel.the physical landing site (annotated with "Intrepid Descent Stage"),the bright "L"-shaped feature near the ALSEP label (which is due tohighly reflective power cables),the Surveyor 3 probe that landed on the Moon years earlier (in 1967),and a set of grey paths that look like dried-up canals, which areactually astronaut footpaths!The Apollo 14 landing site is still intact, and our images of it inmodern times still carry the legacy of this nearly-50-years-old event.The lunar surface changes very slowly over time, and the changes we madein 1971 are still perceptible, virtually unchanged, today.Apollo 14's landing site might be less visually spectacular, but isarguably far more famous. The module that landed on the Moon (theAntares Descent Stage) is clearly visible, as well as the ALSEPequipment, which has a different configuration but still contains thehighly reflective central power station. However, the footpaths areperhaps even more spectacular and varied, belonging to none other thanEdgar Mitchell and famed lunar golfer Alan Shepard.Although the golf balls that he hit were never recovered, and even themost distant golf shot probably didn't quite travel for "miles andmiles" as Shepard originally claimed, we can absolutely see the evidenceof the astronauts' presence. It may be nearly 50 years later, butbecause the Moon is an airless world with few disturbances, humanity'sfootprints have not yet been erased.A photograph from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the landing site ofApollo 17. The tracks of the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) can be clearlyseen, as can the vehicle itself.But compared to these earlier missions, the evidence that's stillvisible from Apollo 17 is nothing short of spectacular. At thisincredibly high resolution, expansive traveling paths and equipmentremnants left on the lunar surface are unmistakable, courtesy of thelast humans to walk on the Moon: Eugene "Gene" Cernan and Harrison"Jack" Schmitt.You can still see the descent module and the ALSEP equipment, but thefootpaths appear far, far greater in scale and consist of two paralleltracks, plus there's a bright spot labeled "LRV" in addition. Why?Because the final three Apollo missions contained an Apollo Lunar Rovingvehicle! Its tracks are distinctly different from footprints, and itenabled astronauts to explore much greater distances on the lunarsurface. The tracks from the LRV extend for over 22 miles in total,reaching five miles away from the landing site and extending far beyondthis image.2.) We have extensive photographic and video evidence from the Apollomissions themselves. How could the lunar module have ascended back offof the surface and returned the astronauts back to the orbiting modulewhich would take them back to Earth? Exactly like the video above shows,from direct Apollo 17 footage. The hypergolic propellant system isn'tbased off of a single explosion, but rather a constant thrust of ~16,000Newtons that was steadily delivered over a timespan of about 5 minutes.There's no exhaust trail because there's no lunar atmosphere, but youcan track the spacecraft's accelerated motion for yourself with evenbasic modern software.This is enough force to launch the ascent stage upwards, increasing itsspeed by about 2,000-3,000 meters-per-second. This is enough to enterlunar orbit and dock with the command and service module, but not enoughto escape lunar orbit. This is why every lunar module, after returningthe astronauts, crash-landed on the lunar surface. The locations of thelunar modules of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17 are all known, and the impactsites (along with the ejecta) are again visible in the LRO data.Here, the dark marks that fan out and appear to spray across the lunarsurface all originate from a single darker point or smudge. This is thetelltale sign of a recent impact, and the four identified locationswhere features such as this occur are consistent with the four sitesthat correspond to the crash-landing of the lunar ascent stages ofApollo 12, 14, 15, and 17. Apollo 11's and 16's locations have stillnever been determined.But there's even more evidence than that: there are thousands of photostaken by Apollo astronauts documenting the entire program. Years ago,NASA released all the photos of the twelve Apollo missions that made itto space on a publicly available Flickr photostream, sorted into aseries of incredible albums by mission. Some of the greatest, mosteye-opening photos, stories and quotes originated from the astronautswho journeyed on those trips.Apollo 10, known as the 'dress rehearsal' for the Moon landing, wasactually equipped with all the apparatuses that would have allowed themto land on the lunar surface themselves. They came closer to the Moonthan any previous crewed mission, and paved the way for the actual moonlanding which took place with Apollo 11 in July of 1969.Traveling through the atmosphere, both exiting the Earth andre-entering, sound horrifying and harrowing according to Apollo 8's BillYou could see the flames and the outer skin of the spacecraft glowing;and burning, baseball-size chunks flying off behind us. It was an eeriefeeling, like being a gnat inside a blowtorch flame.Although there is no way to prove that these photos and videos weren'tfaked, the technology and data to do so didn't exist at the time.Somehow, it all lines up with the full suite of improved data we'vecollected in the half-century since we last visited the Moon.Some of the deployed scientific equipment taken to the Moon during theApollo 12 mission, where the installation and operation of thisequipment was well-documented both remotely and in situ by theastronauts who installed it.3.) The scientific instruments left there returned years of valuabledata, and some are still in use today. The Apollo missions weren'tsimply publicity stunts; they were the pinnacle of human exploration ofanother world. From the very first crewed mission to land on the lunarsurface, we sent up a large suite of scientific instruments to installon the lunar surface and measure its properties.Some of the more famous ones are listed below.Lunar seismometers, which were installed by Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, and16, which transmitted data about the Moon's seismic activity andmoonquakes until the final station failed in 1977.The lunar laser ranging retroreflector arrays, which remain operationaleven today, enable us to reflect lasers off of the reflective surfacesinstalled by the Apollo 11, 14, and 15 crews, as well as the SovietLunokhod 2 rover, to measure the Earth-Moon distance to precisions ofapproximately 1 centimeter.The lunar laser ranging facility at Goddard, as shown here, enables usto track the lunar distance from Earth to ~centimeter accuracy. Theearliest laser reflectors were installed on the Moon's surface as partof the Apollo program, and they remain in service today. The alignmentbetween the predicted and observed distances of the Moon over time isone of science's great accomplishments in our understanding of gravity.The SWC (solar wind composition) experiment taught us what the flux, andcomposition of solar wind particles that reach the Moon's surface are,since there's neither atmosphere nor a magnetic field nor Van Allenbelts to interfere with the received particles on the Moon.The SWS (solar wind spectrum) experiment did exactly the same thing,except for the energy spectrum of the solar wind particles, rather thanthe composition measured by the SWC experiment.The LSM (lunar surface magnetometer) experiment was designed to measurethe lunar magnetic field, determining that the Moon does in fact havemagnetized features on the surface, but that the magnetism is notuniform across the Moon. Unlike Earth, we now know there is no coherentmagnetic field powered by an active core on the Moon.The LDD (lunar dust detector) experiment was initially installed tomeasure how solar panels degraded due to lunar dust deposited from theascent stage and other, subsequent sources. The experiments performed bythe Apollo program showed that we vastly overestimated dust deposits,and instead enabled us to accurately measure the effects of depositedlunar dust.An Apollo 14 astronaut deploys the Apollo Lunar Surface ExperimentsPackage's power source (foreground) and "Central Station" (background),where the Lunar Dust Detector was mounted. In 2012, the data from Apollo14's and 15's LDD experiment was restored and digitized, enablingscientists to perform the first long-term analysis of lunar dust deposition.Each Apollo mission was outfitted with an array of experiments toinstall and perform on the lunar surface. This is what the ALSEPpackage, which stands for Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package, wasdesigned to do. The results from these experiments agree with oneanother and with the data collected from both previous and subsequentexperiments designed to measure a variety of properties of the Sun,Earth, Moon, and their interplay.The fact that we have the data from these experiments, and that many ofthem (and their successors on later Apollo missions and lunar landermissions) are still operational or otherwise in use today, provide uswith extremely strong evidence that we did, in fact, land on the Moon.This image, from January 31, 1971, shows sunrise from Alan Shepard's 12o'clock pan taken near the Lunar Module at the start of EVA-1(moonwalk). Without the Sun glare, we can see some detail on theCone-Crater ridge. The flag, S-Band antenna, ladder, and the LRRR (LaserRanging Retroreflector) are all located in the west footpad. The MET(Modular Equipment Transporter) has not been deployed and is stillfolded up on the MESA (Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly).4.) We have returned and analyzed samples from the Moon, learningunprecedented amounts about lunar geology and the Moon's history in theprocess. One of the primary goals of the Apollo mission was to collectrocks from the lunar surface and return them to Earth for laboratoryanalysis.Through this endeavor, we learned that the Moon and Earth, based on theisotope ratios of the elements present, likely share a common origin,which was likely caused by a cataclysmic impact approximately 50 millionyears after the formation of the Solar System. Originally formulated asthe Giant Impact Hypothesis, this has now evolved to describe a new typeof structure called a synestia, which generalized the Giant Impactscenario to better describe the full suite of observables. Without theApollo missions, we might never have uncovered the critical evidencesupporting this scenario.A synestia will consist of a mixture of vaporized material from bothproto-Earth and the impactor, which forms a large moon inside of it fromthe coalescence of moonlets. This is a general scenario capable ofcreating one single, large moon with the physical and chemicalproperties we observe ours to have.S. J. LOCK ET AL., J. GEOPHYS RESEARCH, 123, 4 (2018), P. 910-951But there wasn't just a single mission, and the various Apollo missionslanded at different sites, enabling us to sample the properties of thelunar soil at a variety of locations. The final two astronauts to everwalk on the Moon, Cernan and Schmitt, ran into quite a surprise whenthey did. Schmitt, the lone civilian-astronaut (and only scientist) totravel to the Moon, was often described as the most business-like of allthe astronauts. Which is why it must have been such a shock to hear himOh, hey! Wait a minute… THERE IS ORANGE SOIL! It’s all over! I stirredit up with my feet!The dull, grey lunar soil you’re used to seeing — that we’re all used toseeing — in one particular spot was only a very thin veneer, covering arich, orange landscape beneath.The orange soil, at the lower right of the image, really stands out whencompared to the colorations visible on the rest of the Moon. Apollo 17,perhaps because they had a geoscientist as one of their moonwalkers, wasable to spot this geological oddity that taught us so much about theMoon's origin and composition.Like any good scientist, or any good explorer, for that matter, Cernanand Schmitt took pictures, collected data, and brought samples back toEarth for further analysis. What could cause orange soil on the Moon,perhaps the most featureless of all the large, airless rocks in ourSolar System?What the analysis back on Earth revealed was fantastic: this wasvolcanic glass. What occurred was that molten lava from the interior ofthe Moon erupted, some 3 to 4 billion years ago, up above the airlesssurface and into the vacuum of space. As the lava became exposed to thevacuum, it separated out into tiny fragments and froze, forming tinybeads of volcanic glass in orange and black colors. (The tin in some ofthe fragments is what gives the orange color.)Olivine inclusions found in lunar samples have a spectacularly highwater concentration of 1,200 ppm. This is remarkable, because it's thesame exact concentration as the water found in terrestrial (Earth-based)olivine inclusions, pointing to a common origin for the Earth and the Moon.E.H. HAURI ET AL., SCIENCE. 2011 JUL 8;333(6039):213–5In 2011, reanalysis of those samples found evidence that water wasincluded in the volcanic eruption: with concentrations of water in theglass beads that were formed 50 times as great as the expected drynessof the Moon.Olivine inclusions showed water present in concentrations up to 1,200parts-per-million. Most remarkably, the lunar samples we've found haveindicated that Earth and the Moon have a common origin, consistent witha giant impact that occurred only a few tens of millions of years intothe birth of our Solar System. Without direct samples, obtained by theApollo missions and brought back to Earth, we never would have been ableto draw such a startling, but spectacular, conclusion.A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or 'mug shot'of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parentboulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder, allowingfor study of the type and rate of erosion acting on lunar rocks.A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or 'mug shot'of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parentboulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder, allowingfor study of the type and rate of erosion acting on lunar rocks. AFP /GETTY IMAGESThere are many different lines of evidence that point to humanity'spresence on the Moon. We landed there and can see the evidence,directly, when we look with the appropriate resolution. We haveextraordinary amounts of evidence, ranging from eyewitness testimony tothe data record tracking the missions to photographs documenting thetrips, all supporting the fact that we landed and walked on the lunarsurface. We have a slew of scientific instruments that were installed,took data, and a few of which can still be seen and used today. Andfinally, we've brought back lunar samples and learned about the Moon'shistory, composition, and likely origin from it.If you choose to be a doubter, that's your call: no one can take yourown freedom of choice away from you. But if you follow the evidence, andthat's what science compels us to do, the only doubts that remain arecompletely unreasonable. We really did land on the Moon, and this is thescience to back it up!Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here.Ethan SiegelEthan Siegel ContributorI am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and science communicator, whoprofesses physics and astronomy at various colleges. I have won numerousawards for science writing si... Read MoreStarts With A BangStarts With A Bang Contributor GroupStarts With A Bang is dedicated to exploring the story of what we knowabout the Universe as well as how we know it, with a focus on physics,astronomy, and the scientif... Read More

My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbelief that anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I did come across somebody who told me it could very well have been a hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people have measured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon by astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.

Of course not! Anyone who claims to have done that is obviously a partof the conspiracy!!

--Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservationinstinct are running screaming.

Post by a425couplefromhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/25/yes-the-apollo-moon-landings-really-did-happen/#209129b56a8f58,553 viewsJun 25, 2019, 02:00amYes, The Apollo Moon Landings Really Did HappenStarts With A BangEthan Siegel ContributorStarts With A Bang Contributor GroupScienceThe Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first set footon another world: our Moon. The Apollo missions that broughtabout these six successful landings are sometimes called intoquestion by 'skeptics,' but the evidence that they reallyoccurred is overwhelming. It has now been nearly 50 yearssince humanity first set foot on another world: our Moon. TheApollo missions that brought about these six successfullandings are sometimes called into question by 'skeptics,'but the evidence that they really occurred is overwhelming.NASA / APOLLO 1550 years ago, on July 20, 1969, humanity took our firstfootsteps on the surface of another world. With NeilArmstrong's small step for a single man, humankind took agreat leap forward into the space age, demonstrating ourpotential for reaching other planets and extending the reachof human civilization far beyond our Earthly bonds.Generations later, in 2019, we're still dreaming of travelingto other planets and other solar systems throughout thegalaxy.Yet there are many who proudly declare that they don't believethat human beings have ever left Earth. That NASA and theentire space program is nothing more than a ruse, a hoax, or acivilization-scale fraud. Like most people alive today, allsix of humanity's Moon landings occurred before I was born.Still, I'm 100% positive they really did occur, and we haveoverwhelming evidence to prove it right at our fingertips.This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrinplanting the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence offootprints in the foreground. These (and other) astronautfootprints, believe it or not, are still visible today.This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrinplanting the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence offootprints in the foreground. These (and other) astronautfootprints, believe it or not, are still visible today. NASA /APOLLO 111.) We can still see the evidence of the Apollo program on theMoon, even today. Here on Earth, marks that we make on ourworld are temporary. Footsteps in the sand disappear aftermere hours at most, as the motions of Earth's winds will eraseany coherent patterns that we can make, and will rearrange anydunes on the same timescales. But on the Moon, there are nooceans, no atmosphere, and no forces to shift the particlesthat compose the lunar regiolith.Whereas on Earth, we have an atmosphere, weather, liquidwater, and living species, the Moon only has the occasionalweak moonquake and the rare visit from an extraterrestrialimpactor or, in the case of humanity, lander or visitor. If wetruly did walk or land on the Moon, therefore, we'd expectthat the evidence of our presence would still remain today.On Earth, footprints or other markings on the surface are onlytemporary, and are easily erased by the winds, rains, andother surface activity that comes about on a world with anatmosphere, oceans, and life. On the Moon, however, thoseconditions are absent, and any alterations to the surface,even those made by humans some ~50 years ago, should persist.GREG PROHL (L); BYRON JORJORIAN (R)The reason is straightforward: without terrestrial phenomenathat move and rearrange the particles on our surface âwithout winds, rains, snows, glaciers, rockslides, etc. âthe only way to rearrange solid grains of particles are viaimpacts. Unless there's an event that kicks up dust, which canthen migrate and settle elsewhere across the lunar surface,any changes we've made to the Moon should remain visible onthe scale of a human lifetime.In other words, if we ever did truly land on the Moon, thetelltale evidence should still be there. All we'd have to dowas return to the sites where the documented landings occurredand photograph them today. This is not simply a thoughtexperiment, but data that was decisively collected years ago,when NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mapped the entireMoon's surface. The Apollo landing sites, in particular, areextremely well-documented.Apollo 12 was the first precision landing of humans on theMoon, and we explored a much greater amount of the lunarsurface than during the first landing. The dark grey markingson the surface are astronaut footprints, which have stood thetest of time on the Moon, as the processes that erase them onEarth are absent on the Moon. NASA / LRO / GSFC / ASUThe orbiter has not only photographed every single one of theApollo landing sites, but three of them â Apollo 12, 14, and17 â were imaged with the orbiter's Narrow Angle Camera andannotated, clearly showcasing a variety of human-createdfeatures. By making a close pass to the lunar surface andphotographing it with the best technology that the moderninstruments LRO was equipped with could provide, the team wasable to achieve resolutions as sharp as 35 cm (about 14") perpixel.the physical landing site (annotated with "Intrepid DescentStage"), the bright "L"-shaped feature near the ALSEP label(which is due to highly reflective power cables),the Surveyor 3 probe that landed on the Moon years earlier (in1967), and a set of grey paths that look like dried-up canals,which are actually astronaut footpaths!The Apollo 14 landing site is still intact, and our images ofit in modern times still carry the legacy of thisnearly-50-years-old event. The lunar surface changes veryslowly over time, and the changes we made in 1971 are stillperceptible, virtually unchanged, today.Apollo 14's landing site might be less visually spectacular,but is arguably far more famous. The module that landed on theMoon (the Antares Descent Stage) is clearly visible, as wellas the ALSEP equipment, which has a different configurationbut still contains the highly reflective central powerstation. However, the footpaths are perhaps even morespectacular and varied, belonging to none other than EdgarMitchell and famed lunar golfer Alan Shepard.Although the golf balls that he hit were never recovered, andeven the most distant golf shot probably didn't quite travelfor "miles and miles" as Shepard originally claimed, we canabsolutely see the evidence of the astronauts' presence. Itmay be nearly 50 years later, but because the Moon is anairless world with few disturbances, humanity's footprintshave not yet been erased.A photograph from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the landingsite of Apollo 17. The tracks of the Lunar Roving Vehicle(LRV) can be clearly seen, as can the vehicle itself.But compared to these earlier missions, the evidence that'sstill visible from Apollo 17 is nothing short of spectacular.At this incredibly high resolution, expansive traveling pathsand equipment remnants left on the lunar surface areEugene "Gene" Cernan and Harrison "Jack" Schmitt.You can still see the descent module and the ALSEP equipment,but the footpaths appear far, far greater in scale and consistof two parallel tracks, plus there's a bright spot labeled"LRV" in addition. Why? Because the final three Apollomissions contained an Apollo Lunar Roving vehicle! Its tracksare distinctly different from footprints, and it enabledastronauts to explore much greater distances on the lunarsurface. The tracks from the LRV extend for over 22 miles intotal, reaching five miles away from the landing site andextending far beyond this image.2.) We have extensive photographic and video evidence from theApollo missions themselves. How could the lunar module haveascended back off of the surface and returned the astronautsback to the orbiting module which would take them back toEarth? Exactly like the video above shows, from direct Apollo17 footage. The hypergolic propellant system isn't based offof a single explosion, but rather a constant thrust of ~16,000Newtons that was steadily delivered over a timespan of about 5minutes. There's no exhaust trail because there's no lunaratmosphere, but you can track the spacecraft's acceleratedmotion for yourself with even basic modern software.This is enough force to launch the ascent stage upwards,increasing its speed by about 2,000-3,000 meters-per-second.This is enough to enter lunar orbit and dock with the commandand service module, but not enough to escape lunar orbit. Thisis why every lunar module, after returning the astronauts,crash-landed on the lunar surface. The locations of the lunarmodules of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17 are all known, and theimpact sites (along with the ejecta) are again visible in theLRO data.Here, the dark marks that fan out and appear to spray acrossthe lunar surface all originate from a single darker point orsmudge. This is the telltale sign of a recent impact, and thefour identified locations where features such as this occurare consistent with the four sites that correspond to thecrash-landing of the lunar ascent stages of Apollo 12, 14, 15,and 17. Apollo 11's and 16's locations have still never beendetermined.But there's even more evidence than that: there are thousandsof photos taken by Apollo astronauts documenting the entireprogram. Years ago, NASA released all the photos of the twelveApollo missions that made it to space on a publicly availableFlickr photostream, sorted into a series of incredible albumsby mission. Some of the greatest, most eye-opening photos,stories and quotes originated from the astronauts whojourneyed on those trips.Apollo 10, known as the 'dress rehearsal' for the Moonlanding, was actually equipped with all the apparatuses thatwould have allowed them to land on the lunar surfacethemselves. They came closer to the Moon than any previouscrewed mission, and paved the way for the actual moon landingwhich took place with Apollo 11 in July of 1969.Traveling through the atmosphere, both exiting the Earth andre-entering, sound horrifying and harrowing according toYou could see the flames and the outer skin of the spacecraftglowing; and burning, baseball-size chunks flying off behindus. It was an eerie feeling, like being a gnat inside ablowtorch flame.Although there is no way to prove that these photos and videosweren't faked, the technology and data to do so didn't existat the time. Somehow, it all lines up with the full suite ofimproved data we've collected in the half-century since welast visited the Moon.Some of the deployed scientific equipment taken to the Moonduring the Apollo 12 mission, where the installation andoperation of this equipment was well-documented both remotelyand in situ by the astronauts who installed it.3.) The scientific instruments left there returned years ofvaluable data, and some are still in use today. The Apollomissions weren't simply publicity stunts; they were thepinnacle of human exploration of another world. From the veryfirst crewed mission to land on the lunar surface, we sent upa large suite of scientific instruments to install on thelunar surface and measure its properties.Some of the more famous ones are listed below.Lunar seismometers, which were installed by Apollo 11, 12, 14,15, and 16, which transmitted data about the Moon's seismicactivity and moonquakes until the final station failed in1977.The lunar laser ranging retroreflector arrays, which remainoperational even today, enable us to reflect lasers off of thereflective surfaces installed by the Apollo 11, 14, and 15crews, as well as the Soviet Lunokhod 2 rover, to measure theEarth-Moon distance to precisions of approximately 1centimeter.The lunar laser ranging facility at Goddard, as shown here,enables us to track the lunar distance from Earth to~centimeter accuracy. The earliest laser reflectors wereinstalled on the Moon's surface as part of the Apollo program,and they remain in service today. The alignment between thepredicted and observed distances of the Moon over time isone of science's great accomplishments in our understanding of gravity.The SWC (solar wind composition) experiment taught us what theflux, and composition of solar wind particles that reach theMoon's surface are, since there's neither atmosphere nor amagnetic field nor Van Allen belts to interfere with thereceived particles on the Moon.The SWS (solar wind spectrum) experiment did exactly the samething, except for the energy spectrum of the solar windparticles, rather than the composition measured by the SWCexperiment.The LSM (lunar surface magnetometer) experiment was designedto measure the lunar magnetic field, determining that the Moondoes in fact have magnetized features on the surface, but thatthe magnetism is not uniform across the Moon. Unlike Earth, wenow know there is no coherent magnetic field powered by anactive core on the Moon.The LDD (lunar dust detector) experiment was initiallyinstalled to measure how solar panels degraded due to lunardust deposited from the ascent stage and other, subsequentsources. The experiments performed by the Apollo programshowed that we vastly overestimated dust deposits, and insteadenabled us to accurately measure the effects of depositedlunar dust.An Apollo 14 astronaut deploys the Apollo Lunar SurfaceExperiments Package's power source (foreground) and "CentralStation" (background), where the Lunar Dust Detector wasmounted. In 2012, the data from Apollo 14's and 15's LDDexperiment was restored and digitized, enabling scientists toperform the first long-term analysis of lunar dust deposition.Each Apollo mission was outfitted with an array of experimentsto install and perform on the lunar surface. This is what theALSEP package, which stands for Apollo Lunar SurfaceExperiments Package, was designed to do. The results fromthese experiments agree with one another and with the datacollected from both previous and subsequent experimentsdesigned to measure a variety of properties of the Sun, Earth,Moon, and their interplay.The fact that we have the data from these experiments, andthat many of them (and their successors on later Apollomissions and lunar lander missions) are still operational orotherwise in use today, provide us with extremely strongevidence that we did, in fact, land on the Moon.This image, from January 31, 1971, shows sunrise from AlanShepard's 12 o'clock pan taken near the Lunar Module at thestart of EVA-1 (moonwalk). Without the Sun glare, we can seesome detail on the Cone-Crater ridge. The flag, S-Bandantenna, ladder, and the LRRR (Laser Ranging Retroreflector)are all located in the west footpad. The MET (ModularEquipment Transporter) has not been deployed and is stillfolded up on the MESA (Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly).4.) We have returned and analyzed samples from the Moon,learning unprecedented amounts about lunar geology and theMoon's history in the process. One of the primary goals of theApollo mission was to collect rocks from the lunar surface andreturn them to Earth for laboratory analysis.Through this endeavor, we learned that the Moon and Earth,based on the isotope ratios of the elements present, likelyshare a common origin, which was likely caused by acataclysmic impact approximately 50 million years after theformation of the Solar System. Originally formulated as theGiant Impact Hypothesis, this has now evolved to describe anew type of structure called a synestia, which generalized theGiant Impact scenario to better describe the full suite ofobservables. Without the Apollo missions, we might never haveuncovered the critical evidence supporting this scenario.A synestia will consist of a mixture of vaporized materialfrom both proto-Earth and the impactor, which forms a largemoon inside of it from the coalescence of moonlets. This is ageneral scenario capable of creating one single, large moonwith the physical and chemical properties we observe ours tohave. S. J. LOCK ET AL., J. GEOPHYS RESEARCH, 123, 4 (2018),P. 910-951But there wasn't just a single mission, and the various Apollomissions landed at different sites, enabling us to sample theproperties of the lunar soil at a variety of locations. Thefinal two astronauts to ever walk on the Moon, Cernan andSchmitt, ran into quite a surprise when they did. Schmitt, thelone civilian-astronaut (and only scientist) to travel to theMoon, was often described as the most business-like of allthe astronauts. Which is why it must have been such a shock toOh, hey! Wait a minuteâŠ THERE IS ORANGE SOIL! Itâs allover! I stirred it up with my feet!The dull, grey lunar soil youâre used to seeing â thatweâre all used to seeing â in one particular spot was onlya very thin veneer, covering a rich, orange landscape beneath.The orange soil, at the lower right of the image, reallystands out when compared to the colorations visible on therest of the Moon. Apollo 17, perhaps because they had ageoscientist as one of their moonwalkers, was able to spotthis geological oddity that taught us so much about the Moon'sorigin and composition.Like any good scientist, or any good explorer, for thatmatter, Cernan and Schmitt took pictures, collected data, andbrought samples back to Earth for further analysis. What couldcause orange soil on the Moon, perhaps the most featureless ofall the large, airless rocks in our Solar System?What the analysis back on Earth revealed was fantastic: thiswas volcanic glass. What occurred was that molten lava fromthe interior of the Moon erupted, some 3 to 4 billion yearsago, up above the airless surface and into the vacuum ofspace. As the lava became exposed to the vacuum, it separatedout into tiny fragments and froze, forming tiny beads ofvolcanic glass in orange and black colors. (The tin in some ofthe fragments is what gives the orange color.)Olivine inclusions found in lunar samples have a spectacularlyhigh water concentration of 1,200 ppm. This is remarkable,because it's the same exact concentration as the water foundin terrestrial (Earth-based) olivine inclusions, pointing to acommon origin for the Earth and the Moon. E.H. HAURI ET AL.,SCIENCE. 2011 JUL 8;333(6039):213â5In 2011, reanalysis of those samples found evidence that waterwas included in the volcanic eruption: with concentrations ofwater in the glass beads that were formed 50 times as great asthe expected dryness of the Moon.Olivine inclusions showed water present in concentrations upto 1,200 parts-per-million. Most remarkably, the lunar sampleswe've found have indicated that Earth and the Moon have acommon origin, consistent with a giant impact that occurredonly a few tens of millions of years into the birth of ourSolar System. Without direct samples, obtained by the Apollomissions and brought back to Earth, we never would have beenable to draw such a startling, but spectacular, conclusion.A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or'mug shot' of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodgedfragment from a parent boulder. A fillet-soil sample was takenclose to the boulder, allowing for study of the type and rateof erosion acting on lunar rocks. A NASA picture taken on May5, 1972 shows a close-up view or 'mug shot' of Apollo 16 lunarsample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parent boulder.A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder, allowingfor study of the type and rate of erosion acting on lunarrocks. AFP / GETTY IMAGESThere are many different lines of evidence that point tohumanity's presence on the Moon. We landed there and can seethe evidence, directly, when we look with the appropriateresolution. We have extraordinary amounts of evidence, rangingfrom eyewitness testimony to the data record tracking themissions to photographs documenting the trips, all supportingthe fact that we landed and walked on the lunar surface. Wehave a slew of scientific instruments that were installed,took data, and a few of which can still be seen and usedtoday. And finally, we've brought back lunar samples andlearned about the Moon's history, composition, and likelyorigin from it.If you choose to be a doubter, that's your call: no one cantake your own freedom of choice away from you. But if youfollow the evidence, and that's what science compels us to do,the only doubts that remain are completely unreasonable. Wereally did land on the Moon, and this is the science to backit up!Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my otherwork here. Ethan SiegelEthan Siegel ContributorI am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and science communicator,who professes physics and astronomy at various colleges. Ihave won numerous awards for science writing si... Read MoreStarts With A BangStarts With A Bang Contributor GroupStarts With A Bang is dedicated to exploring the story of whatwe know about the Universe as well as how we know it, with afocus on physics, astronomy, and the scientif... Read More

My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbeliefthat anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I didcome across somebody who told me it could very well have been ahoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people havemeasured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon byastronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.

Of course not! Anyone who claims to have done that is obviouslya part of the conspiracy!!

Which is a step up from the flat earthers, who now believe thatother flat earthers are part of the conspiracy.--Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider thanLynn:https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."-- David Bilek

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 5:17:11 PM UTC+1, a425coupleMy first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbeliefthat anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I didcome across somebody who told me it could very well have been ahoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people havemeasured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon byastronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.

Of course not! Anyone who claims to have done that is obviouslya part of the conspiracy!!

Which is a step up from the flat earthers, who now believe thatother flat earthers are part of the conspiracy.

O_o

--Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservationinstinct are running screaming.

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 5:17:11 PM UTC+1, a425coupleMy first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes wasdisbelief that anybody was really skeptical, but a few yearsago I did come across somebody who told me it could very wellhave been a hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him thatpeople have measured the distance to laser reflectors left onthe moon by astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.

Of course not! Anyone who claims to have done that isobviously a part of the conspiracy!!

Which is a step up from the flat earthers, who now believe thatother flat earthers are part of the conspiracy.

O_o

Indeed. But, to maintain the delusion, it really can't be anyother way.--Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider thanLynn: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."-- David Bilek

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 5:17:11 PM UTC+1, a425coupleMy first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes wasdisbelief that anybody was really skeptical, but a few yearsago I did come across somebody who told me it could very wellhave been a hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him thatpeople have measured the distance to laser reflectors left onthe moon by astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.

Of course not! Anyone who claims to have done that isobviously a part of the conspiracy!!

Which is a step up from the flat earthers, who now believe thatother flat earthers are part of the conspiracy.

O_o

Indeed. But, to maintain the delusion, it really can't be anyother way.

The conspiranoiacs think "Capricorn One" was a documentary. :)

Actually:

[quote]

Clips from the faked Mars landing scenes have been used forillustration purposes in various moon landing hoax conspiracydocumentaries, notably the Fox TV show "Conspiracy Theory: DidWe Land On The Moon?" and Bart Sibrel's film "A Funny ThingHappened on the Way to the Moon" (2001). The latter also featuresa still shot from the hoax scene on the DVD's front cover

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 5:17:11 PM UTC+1, a425coupleMy first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes wasdisbelief that anybody was really skeptical, but a fewyears ago I did come across somebody who told me it couldvery well have been a hoax, and appeared to be serious. Itold him that people have measured the distance to laserreflectors left on the moon by astronauts, but I doubt ifI convinced him.

Of course not! Anyone who claims to have done that isobviously a part of the conspiracy!!

Which is a step up from the flat earthers, who now believethat other flat earthers are part of the conspiracy.

O_o

Indeed. But, to maintain the delusion, it really can't be anyother way.

The conspiranoiacs think "Capricorn One" was a documentary. :)

IIRC, the inspiration for Capricorn One was, in fact, the actualmoon landing conspiracy theory. In those days, the conspiracytheory was recognized as too stupid even for a movie audience, sothey had to fictionalize it.--Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider thanLynn:https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."-- David Bilek

Which is a step up from the flat earthers, who now believe thatother flat earthers are part of the conspiracy.

O_o

Technically, a Mobius strip is a section out of a flat manifold, and you canmake a topological Klein bottle from a flat square too. So yeah, how twistedtheir mental paths are doesn't appear to jar them from flatness. Nor doesseeing other flat earthers whose views appear to be upside down from theirsover their heads...

Dave, they also don't seem to understand how the air would behave near theedges. LEARN CALCULUS, KOOK FOLKS

--\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flowerIt's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to seeLove is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

--"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.â-----------------------------------------------------Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com

Which is a step up from the flat earthers, who now believethat other flat earthers are part of the conspiracy.

O_o

Technically, a Mobius strip is a section out of a flat manifold,and you can make a topological Klein bottle from a flat squaretoo. So yeah, how twisted their mental paths are doesn't appearto jar them from flatness. Nor does seeing other flat eartherswhose views appear to be upside down from theirs over theirheads...Dave, they also don't seem to understand how the air wouldbehave near theedges. LEARN CALCULUS, KOOK FOLKS

Calculus is a tool of the conspiracy, just like you are.--Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider thanLynn:https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United Statesillegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Post by David DeLaneyDave, they also don't seem to understand how the air would behave near theedges. LEARN CALCULUS, KOOK FOLKS

Calculus is a tool of the conspiracy, just like you are.

Pshaw. Calculus is just throwing a LOT of very very small stones.

Dave, the ghosts of departed quantities

--\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flowerIt's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to seeLove is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

Post by a425couplefromhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/25/yes-the-apollo-mo

on-landings-really-did-happen/#209129b56a8f

Post by a425couple58,553 viewsJun 25, 2019, 02:00amYes, The Apollo Moon Landings Really Did HappenStarts With A BangEthan Siegel ContributorStarts With A Bang Contributor GroupScienceThe Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first set footon anotherworld: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about thesesix successful landings are sometimes called into question by'skeptics,' but the evidence that they really occurred isoverwhelming. It has now been nearly 50 years since humanityfirst set foot on anotherworld: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about thesesix successful landings are sometimes called into question by'skeptics,' but the evidence that they really occurred isoverwhelming. NASA / APOLLO

15

Post by a425couple50 years ago, on July 20, 1969, humanity took our firstfootsteps on thesurface of another world. With Neil Armstrong's small step for a singleman, humankind took a great leap forward into the space age,demonstrating our potential for reaching other planets andextending thereach of human civilization far beyond our Earthly bonds.Generations later, in 2019, we're still dreaming of travelingto other planets and other solar systems throughout the galaxy.Yet there are many who proudly declare that they don't believethat human beings have ever left Earth. That NASA and theentire space program is nothing more than a ruse, a hoax, or acivilization-scale fraud. Like most people alive today, all sixof humanity's Moon landingsoccurred before I was born. Still, I'm 100% positive theyreally did occur, and we have overwhelming evidence to prove itright at our fingertips.This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrinplanting the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence offootprints in the foreground. These (and other) astronautfootprints, believe it or not, are still visible today.This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrinplanting the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence offootprints in the foreground. These (and other) astronautfootprints, believe it or not, are still visible today. NASA /APOLLO 111.) We can still see the evidence of the Apollo program on theMoon, even today. Here on Earth, marks that we make on ourworld are temporary. Footsteps in the sand disappear after merehours at most, asthe motions of Earth's winds will erase any coherent patternsthat we can make, and will rearrange any dunes on the sametimescales. But on the Moon, there are no oceans, noatmosphere, and no forces to shift theparticles that compose the lunar regiolith.Whereas on Earth, we have an atmosphere, weather, liquid water,and living species, the Moon only has the occasional weakmoonquake and therare visit from an extraterrestrial impactor or, in the case ofhumanity, lander or visitor. If we truly did walk or land onthe Moon, therefore, we'd expect that the evidence of ourpresence would still remain today.On Earth, footprints or other markings on the surface are onlytemporary, and are easily erased by the winds, rains, and other surfaceactivity that comes about on a world with an atmosphere,oceans, and life. On the Moon, however, those conditions areabsent, and any alterations to the surface, even those made byhumans some ~50 years ago, should persist. GREG PROHL (L);BYRON JORJORIAN (R)The reason is straightforward: without terrestrial phenomenathat move and rearrange the particles on our surface âwithout winds, rains

Post by a425couplegrains of particles are via impacts. Unless there's an eventthat kicksup dust, which can then migrate and settle elsewhere across thelunar surface, any changes we've made to the Moon should remainvisible on thescale of a human lifetime.In other words, if we ever did truly land on the Moon, thetelltale evidence should still be there. All we'd have to dowas return to the sites where the documented landings occurredand photograph them today.This is not simply a thought experiment, but data that wasdecisively collected years ago, when NASA's LunarReconnaissance Orbiter mapped theentire Moon's surface. The Apollo landing sites, in particular,are extremely well-documented.Apollo 12 was the first precision landing of humans on theMoon, and weexplored a much greater amount of the lunar surface than duringthe first landing. The dark grey markings on the surface areastronaut footprints, which have stood the test of time on theMoon, as the processes that erase them on Earth are absent onthe Moon. NASA / LRO /GSFC / ASUThe orbiter has not only photographed every single one of theApollo landing sites, but three of them â Apollo 12, 14, and17 â

 were imaged

Post by a425couplewith the orbiter's Narrow Angle Camera and annotated, clearlyshowcasinga variety of human-created features. By making a close pass to the lunarsurface and photographing it with the best technology that themodern instruments LRO was equipped with could provide, theteam was able to achieve resolutions as sharp as 35 cm (about14") per pixel.When you examine the Apollo 12 landing site, visible featuresthe physical landing site (annotated with "Intrepid DescentStage"), the bright "L"-shaped feature near the ALSEP label(which is due to highly reflective power cables),the Surveyor 3 probe that landed on the Moon years earlier (in1967), and a set of grey paths that look like dried-up canals,which are actually astronaut footpaths!The Apollo 14 landing site is still intact, and our images ofit in modern times still carry the legacy of thisnearly-50-years-old event. The lunar surface changes veryslowly over time, and the changes we madein 1971 are still perceptible, virtually unchanged, today.Apollo 14's landing site might be less visually spectacular,but is arguably far more famous. The module that landed on theMoon (the Antares Descent Stage) is clearly visible, as well asthe ALSEP equipment, which has a different configuration butstill contains the highly reflective central power station.However, the footpaths are perhaps even more spectacular andvaried, belonging to none other than Edgar Mitchell and famedlunar golfer Alan Shepard.Although the golf balls that he hit were never recovered, andeven the most distant golf shot probably didn't quite travelfor "miles and miles" as Shepard originally claimed, we canabsolutely see the evidenceof the astronauts' presence. It may be nearly 50 years later,but because the Moon is an airless world with few disturbances,humanity's footprints have not yet been erased.A photograph from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the landingsite of Apollo 17. The tracks of the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV)can be clearly seen, as can the vehicle itself.But compared to these earlier missions, the evidence that'sstill visible from Apollo 17 is nothing short of spectacular.At this incredibly high resolution, expansive traveling pathsand equipment remnants left on the lunar surface areEugene "Gene" Cernan and Harrison "Jack" Schmitt.You can still see the descent module and the ALSEP equipment,but the footpaths appear far, far greater in scale and consistof two parallel tracks, plus there's a bright spot labeled"LRV" in addition. Why? Because the final three Apollo missionscontained an Apollo Lunar Rovingvehicle! Its tracks are distinctly different from footprints,and it enabled astronauts to explore much greater distances onthe lunar surface. The tracks from the LRV extend for over 22miles in total, reaching five miles away from the landing siteand extending far beyondthis image.2.) We have extensive photographic and video evidence from theApollo missions themselves. How could the lunar module haveascended back off of the surface and returned the astronautsback to the orbiting module which would take them back toEarth? Exactly like the video above shows,from direct Apollo 17 footage. The hypergolic propellant systemisn't based off of a single explosion, but rather a constantthrust of ~16,000Newtons that was steadily delivered over a timespan of about 5 minutes.There's no exhaust trail because there's no lunar atmosphere,but you can track the spacecraft's accelerated motion foryourself with even basic modern software.This is enough force to launch the ascent stage upwards,increasing itsspeed by about 2,000-3,000 meters-per-second. This is enough toenter lunar orbit and dock with the command and service module,but not enoughto escape lunar orbit. This is why every lunar module, afterreturning the astronauts, crash-landed on the lunar surface.The locations of thelunar modules of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17 are all known, andthe impactsites (along with the ejecta) are again visible in the LROdata.Here, the dark marks that fan out and appear to spray acrossthe lunar surface all originate from a single darker point orsmudge. This is thetelltale sign of a recent impact, and the four identifiedlocations where features such as this occur are consistent withthe four sites that correspond to the crash-landing of thelunar ascent stages of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17. Apollo 11'sand 16's locations have still never been determined.But there's even more evidence than that: there are thousandsof photostaken by Apollo astronauts documenting the entire program.Years ago, NASA released all the photos of the twelve Apollomissions that made itto space on a publicly available Flickr photostream, sortedinto a series of incredible albums by mission. Some of thegreatest, most eye-opening photos, stories and quotesoriginated from the astronauts who journeyed on those trips.Apollo 10, known as the 'dress rehearsal' for the Moon landing,was actually equipped with all the apparatuses that would haveallowed themto land on the lunar surface themselves. They came closer tothe Moon than any previous crewed mission, and paved the wayfor the actual moonlanding which took place with Apollo 11 in July of 1969.Traveling through the atmosphere, both exiting the Earth andre-entering, sound horrifying and harrowing according to Apollo 8's BillYou could see the flames and the outer skin of the spacecraftglowing; and burning, baseball-size chunks flying off behindus. It was an eeriefeeling, like being a gnat inside a blowtorch flame.Although there is no way to prove that these photos and videosweren't faked, the technology and data to do so didn't exist atthe time. Somehow, it all lines up with the full suite ofimproved data we've collected in the half-century since we lastvisited the Moon.Some of the deployed scientific equipment taken to the Moonduring the Apollo 12 mission, where the installation andoperation of this equipment was well-documented both remotelyand in situ by the astronauts who installed it.3.) The scientific instruments left there returned years ofvaluable data, and some are still in use today. The Apollomissions weren't simply publicity stunts; they were thepinnacle of human exploration ofanother world. From the very first crewed mission to land onthe lunar surface, we sent up a large suite of scientificinstruments to install on the lunar surface and measure itsproperties.Some of the more famous ones are listed below.Lunar seismometers, which were installed by Apollo 11, 12, 14,15, and 16, which transmitted data about the Moon's seismicactivity and moonquakes until the final station failed in 1977.The lunar laser ranging retroreflector arrays, which remainoperationaleven today, enable us to reflect lasers off of the reflectivesurfaces installed by the Apollo 11, 14, and 15 crews, as wellas the Soviet Lunokhod 2 rover, to measure the Earth-Moondistance to precisions of approximately 1 centimeter.The lunar laser ranging facility at Goddard, as shown here,enables us to track the lunar distance from Earth to~centimeter accuracy. The earliest laser reflectors wereinstalled on the Moon's surface as part of the Apollo program,and they remain in service today. The alignment between thepredicted and observed distances of the Moon over time is oneof science's great accomplishments in our understanding ofgravity.The SWC (solar wind composition) experiment taught us what the flux, andcomposition of solar wind particles that reach the Moon'ssurface are, since there's neither atmosphere nor a magneticfield nor Van Allen belts to interfere with the receivedparticles on the Moon.The SWS (solar wind spectrum) experiment did exactly the samething, except for the energy spectrum of the solar windparticles, rather thanthe composition measured by the SWC experiment.The LSM (lunar surface magnetometer) experiment was designed to measurethe lunar magnetic field, determining that the Moon does infact have magnetized features on the surface, but that themagnetism is not uniform across the Moon. Unlike Earth, we nowknow there is no coherentmagnetic field powered by an active core on the Moon.The LDD (lunar dust detector) experiment was initiallyinstalled to measure how solar panels degraded due to lunardust deposited from the ascent stage and other, subsequentsources. The experiments performed bythe Apollo program showed that we vastly overestimated dustdeposits, and instead enabled us to accurately measure theeffects of deposited lunar dust.An Apollo 14 astronaut deploys the Apollo Lunar SurfaceExperiments Package's power source (foreground) and "CentralStation" (background),where the Lunar Dust Detector was mounted. In 2012, the datafrom Apollo14's and 15's LDD experiment was restored and digitized,enabling scientists to perform the first long-term analysis oflunar dust depositi

on.

Post by a425coupleEach Apollo mission was outfitted with an array of experimentsto install and perform on the lunar surface. This is what theALSEP package, which stands for Apollo Lunar SurfaceExperiments Package, wasdesigned to do. The results from these experiments agree withone another and with the data collected from both previous andsubsequent experiments designed to measure a variety ofproperties of the Sun, Earth, Moon, and their interplay.The fact that we have the data from these experiments, and that many ofthem (and their successors on later Apollo missions and lunarlander missions) are still operational or otherwise in usetoday, provide us with extremely strong evidence that we did,in fact, land on the Moon.This image, from January 31, 1971, shows sunrise from AlanShepard's 12o'clock pan taken near the Lunar Module at the start of EVA-1(moonwalk). Without the Sun glare, we can see some detail onthe Cone-Crater ridge. The flag, S-Band antenna, ladder, andthe LRRR (LaserRanging Retroreflector) are all located in the west footpad.The MET (Modular Equipment Transporter) has not been deployedand is still folded up on the MESA (Modular Equipment StowageAssembly).4.) We have returned and analyzed samples from the Moon,learning unprecedented amounts about lunar geology and theMoon's history in theprocess. One of the primary goals of the Apollo mission was tocollect rocks from the lunar surface and return them to Earthfor laboratory analysis.Through this endeavor, we learned that the Moon and Earth,based on theisotope ratios of the elements present, likely share a commonorigin, which was likely caused by a cataclysmic impactapproximately 50 millionyears after the formation of the Solar System. Originallyformulated asthe Giant Impact Hypothesis, this has now evolved to describe a new typeof structure called a synestia, which generalized the GiantImpact scenario to better describe the full suite ofobservables. Without the Apollo missions, we might never haveuncovered the critical evidence supporting this scenario.A synestia will consist of a mixture of vaporized material fromboth proto-Earth and the impactor, which forms a large mooninside of it fromthe coalescence of moonlets. This is a general scenario capableof creating one single, large moon with the physical andchemical properties we observe ours to have.S. J. LOCK ET AL., J. GEOPHYS RESEARCH, 123, 4 (2018), P.910-951But there wasn't just a single mission, and the various Apollo missionslanded at different sites, enabling us to sample the propertiesof the lunar soil at a variety of locations. The final twoastronauts to ever walk on the Moon, Cernan and Schmitt, raninto quite a surprise when they did. Schmitt, the lonecivilian-astronaut (and only scientist) to travel to the Moon,was often described as the most business-like of allthe astronauts. Which is why it must have been such a shock to hear himOh, hey! Wait a minuteâŠ THERE IS ORANGE SOIL! Itâs all ov

er! I stirred

Post by a425coupleit up with my feet!The dull, grey lunar soil youâre used to seeing â that we

Post by a425couplerich, orange landscape beneath.The orange soil, at the lower right of the image, really stands out whencompared to the colorations visible on the rest of the Moon.Apollo 17,perhaps because they had a geoscientist as one of theirmoonwalkers, wasable to spot this geological oddity that taught us so muchabout the Moon's origin and composition.Like any good scientist, or any good explorer, for that matter,Cernan and Schmitt took pictures, collected data, and broughtsamples back to Earth for further analysis. What could causeorange soil on the Moon, perhaps the most featureless of allthe large, airless rocks in our Solar System?What the analysis back on Earth revealed was fantastic: thiswas volcanic glass. What occurred was that molten lava from theinterior ofthe Moon erupted, some 3 to 4 billion years ago, up above theairless surface and into the vacuum of space. As the lavabecame exposed to thevacuum, it separated out into tiny fragments and froze, formingtiny beads of volcanic glass in orange and black colors. (Thetin in some ofthe fragments is what gives the orange color.)Olivine inclusions found in lunar samples have a spectacularlyhigh water concentration of 1,200 ppm. This is remarkable,because it's the same exact concentration as the water found interrestrial (Earth-based)olivine inclusions, pointing to a common origin for the Earthand the Moo

n.

Post by a425coupleE.H. HAURI ET AL., SCIENCE. 2011 JUL 8;333(6039):213â5In 2011, reanalysis of those samples found evidence that waterwas included in the volcanic eruption: with concentrations ofwater in the glass beads that were formed 50 times as great asthe expected dryness of the Moon.Olivine inclusions showed water present in concentrations up to1,200 parts-per-million. Most remarkably, the lunar sampleswe've found have indicated that Earth and the Moon have acommon origin, consistent witha giant impact that occurred only a few tens of millions ofyears into the birth of our Solar System. Without directsamples, obtained by the Apollo missions and brought back toEarth, we never would have been ableto draw such a startling, but spectacular, conclusion.A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or'mug shot'of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parentboulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder,allowing for study of the type and rate of erosion acting onlunar rocks. A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows aclose-up view or 'mug shot'of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parentboulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder,allowing for study of the type and rate of erosion acting onlunar rocks. AFP / GETTY IMAGESThere are many different lines of evidence that point tohumanity's presence on the Moon. We landed there and can seethe evidence, directly, when we look with the appropriateresolution. We have extraordinary amounts of evidence, rangingfrom eyewitness testimony tothe data record tracking the missions to photographsdocumenting the trips, all supporting the fact that we landedand walked on the lunar surface. We have a slew of scientificinstruments that were installed, took data, and a few of whichcan still be seen and used today. And finally, we've broughtback lunar samples and learned about the Moon's history,composition, and likely origin from it.If you choose to be a doubter, that's your call: no one cantake your own freedom of choice away from you. But if youfollow the evidence, andthat's what science compels us to do, the only doubts thatremain are completely unreasonable. We really did land on theMoon, and this is thescience to back it up!Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my otherwork here. Ethan SiegelEthan Siegel ContributorI am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and science communicator,who professes physics and astronomy at various colleges. I havewon numerousawards for science writing si... Read MoreStarts With A BangStarts With A Bang Contributor GroupStarts With A Bang is dedicated to exploring the story of whatwe know about the Universe as well as how we know it, with afocus on physics, astronomy, and the scientif... Read More

My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbeliefthat anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I didcome across somebody who told me it could very well have been ahoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people havemeasured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon byastronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.

There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time. Andthey *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking it wouldhave taken more money and better technology than actually goingdid.

Some people are just *stupid*.--Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider thanLynn:https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."-- David Bilek

Post by a425couplefromhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/25/yes-the-apollo-mo

on-landings-really-did-happen/#209129b56a8f

Post by a425couple58,553 viewsJun 25, 2019, 02:00amYes, The Apollo Moon Landings Really Did HappenStarts With A BangEthan Siegel ContributorStarts With A Bang Contributor GroupScienceThe Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first set foot on anotherworld: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about thesesix successful landings are sometimes called into question by'skeptics,' but the evidence that they really occurred isoverwhelming. It has now been nearly 50 years since humanityfirst set foot on anotherworld: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about thesesix successful landings are sometimes called into question by'skeptics,' but the evidence that they really occurred isoverwhelming. NASA / APOLLO

15

Post by a425couple50 years ago, on July 20, 1969, humanity took our firstfootsteps on thesurface of another world. With Neil Armstrong's small step for a singleman, humankind took a great leap forward into the space age,demonstrating our potential for reaching other planets andextending thereach of human civilization far beyond our Earthly bonds.Generations later, in 2019, we're still dreaming of travelingto other planets and other solar systems throughout the galaxy.Yet there are many who proudly declare that they don't believethat human beings have ever left Earth. That NASA and theentire space program is nothing more than a ruse, a hoax, or acivilization-scale fraud. Like most people alive today, all sixof humanity's Moon landingsoccurred before I was born. Still, I'm 100% positive theyreally did occur, and we have overwhelming evidence to prove itright at our fingertips.This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrinplanting the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence offootprints in the foreground. These (and other) astronautfootprints, believe it or not, are still visible today.This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrinplanting the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence offootprints in the foreground. These (and other) astronautfootprints, believe it or not, are still visible today. NASA /APOLLO 111.) We can still see the evidence of the Apollo program on theMoon, even today. Here on Earth, marks that we make on ourworld are temporary. Footsteps in the sand disappear after merehours at most, asthe motions of Earth's winds will erase any coherent patternsthat we can make, and will rearrange any dunes on the sametimescales. But on the Moon, there are no oceans, noatmosphere, and no forces to shift theparticles that compose the lunar regiolith.Whereas on Earth, we have an atmosphere, weather, liquid water,and living species, the Moon only has the occasional weakmoonquake and therare visit from an extraterrestrial impactor or, in the case ofhumanity, lander or visitor. If we truly did walk or land onthe Moon, therefore, we'd expect that the evidence of ourpresence would still remain today.On Earth, footprints or other markings on the surface are onlytemporary, and are easily erased by the winds, rains, and other surfaceactivity that comes about on a world with an atmosphere,oceans, and life. On the Moon, however, those conditions areabsent, and any alterations to the surface, even those made byhumans some ~50 years ago, should persist. GREG PROHL (L);BYRON JORJORIAN (R)The reason is straightforward: without terrestrial phenomenathat move and rearrange the particles on our surface —without winds, rains

Post by a425couplegrains of particles are via impacts. Unless there's an event that kicksup dust, which can then migrate and settle elsewhere across thelunar surface, any changes we've made to the Moon should remainvisible on thescale of a human lifetime.In other words, if we ever did truly land on the Moon, thetelltale evidence should still be there. All we'd have to dowas return to the sites where the documented landings occurredand photograph them today.This is not simply a thought experiment, but data that wasdecisively collected years ago, when NASA's LunarReconnaissance Orbiter mapped theentire Moon's surface. The Apollo landing sites, in particular,are extremely well-documented.Apollo 12 was the first precision landing of humans on theMoon, and weexplored a much greater amount of the lunar surface than duringthe first landing. The dark grey markings on the surface areastronaut footprints, which have stood the test of time on theMoon, as the processes that erase them on Earth are absent onthe Moon. NASA / LRO /GSFC / ASUThe orbiter has not only photographed every single one of theApollo landing sites, but three of them — Apollo 12, 14, and17 �€

” were imaged

Post by a425couplewith the orbiter's Narrow Angle Camera and annotated, clearly showcasinga variety of human-created features. By making a close pass to the lunarsurface and photographing it with the best technology that themodern instruments LRO was equipped with could provide, theteam was able to achieve resolutions as sharp as 35 cm (about14") per pixel.the physical landing site (annotated with "Intrepid DescentStage"), the bright "L"-shaped feature near the ALSEP label(which is due to highly reflective power cables),the Surveyor 3 probe that landed on the Moon years earlier (in1967), and a set of grey paths that look like dried-up canals,which are actually astronaut footpaths!The Apollo 14 landing site is still intact, and our images ofit in modern times still carry the legacy of thisnearly-50-years-old event. The lunar surface changes veryslowly over time, and the changes we madein 1971 are still perceptible, virtually unchanged, today.Apollo 14's landing site might be less visually spectacular,but is arguably far more famous. The module that landed on theMoon (the Antares Descent Stage) is clearly visible, as well asthe ALSEP equipment, which has a different configuration butstill contains the highly reflective central power station.However, the footpaths are perhaps even more spectacular andvaried, belonging to none other than Edgar Mitchell and famedlunar golfer Alan Shepard.Although the golf balls that he hit were never recovered, andeven the most distant golf shot probably didn't quite travelfor "miles and miles" as Shepard originally claimed, we canabsolutely see the evidenceof the astronauts' presence. It may be nearly 50 years later,but because the Moon is an airless world with few disturbances,humanity's footprints have not yet been erased.A photograph from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the landingsite of Apollo 17. The tracks of the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV)can be clearly seen, as can the vehicle itself.But compared to these earlier missions, the evidence that'sstill visible from Apollo 17 is nothing short of spectacular.At this incredibly high resolution, expansive traveling pathsand equipment remnants left on the lunar surface areEugene "Gene" Cernan and Harrison "Jack" Schmitt.You can still see the descent module and the ALSEP equipment,but the footpaths appear far, far greater in scale and consistof two parallel tracks, plus there's a bright spot labeled"LRV" in addition. Why? Because the final three Apollo missionscontained an Apollo Lunar Rovingvehicle! Its tracks are distinctly different from footprints,and it enabled astronauts to explore much greater distances onthe lunar surface. The tracks from the LRV extend for over 22miles in total, reaching five miles away from the landing siteand extending far beyondthis image.2.) We have extensive photographic and video evidence from theApollo missions themselves. How could the lunar module haveascended back off of the surface and returned the astronautsback to the orbiting module which would take them back toEarth? Exactly like the video above shows,from direct Apollo 17 footage. The hypergolic propellant systemisn't based off of a single explosion, but rather a constantthrust of ~16,000Newtons that was steadily delivered over a timespan of about 5 minutes.There's no exhaust trail because there's no lunar atmosphere,but you can track the spacecraft's accelerated motion foryourself with even basic modern software.This is enough force to launch the ascent stage upwards,increasing itsspeed by about 2,000-3,000 meters-per-second. This is enough toenter lunar orbit and dock with the command and service module,but not enoughto escape lunar orbit. This is why every lunar module, afterreturning the astronauts, crash-landed on the lunar surface.The locations of thelunar modules of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17 are all known, and the impactsites (along with the ejecta) are again visible in the LROdata.Here, the dark marks that fan out and appear to spray acrossthe lunar surface all originate from a single darker point orsmudge. This is thetelltale sign of a recent impact, and the four identifiedlocations where features such as this occur are consistent withthe four sites that correspond to the crash-landing of thelunar ascent stages of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17. Apollo 11'sand 16's locations have still never been determined.But there's even more evidence than that: there are thousands of photostaken by Apollo astronauts documenting the entire program.Years ago, NASA released all the photos of the twelve Apollomissions that made itto space on a publicly available Flickr photostream, sortedinto a series of incredible albums by mission. Some of thegreatest, most eye-opening photos, stories and quotesoriginated from the astronauts who journeyed on those trips.Apollo 10, known as the 'dress rehearsal' for the Moon landing,was actually equipped with all the apparatuses that would haveallowed themto land on the lunar surface themselves. They came closer tothe Moon than any previous crewed mission, and paved the wayfor the actual moonlanding which took place with Apollo 11 in July of 1969.Traveling through the atmosphere, both exiting the Earth andre-entering, sound horrifying and harrowing according to Apollo 8's BillYou could see the flames and the outer skin of the spacecraftglowing; and burning, baseball-size chunks flying off behindus. It was an eeriefeeling, like being a gnat inside a blowtorch flame.Although there is no way to prove that these photos and videosweren't faked, the technology and data to do so didn't exist atthe time. Somehow, it all lines up with the full suite ofimproved data we've collected in the half-century since we lastvisited the Moon.Some of the deployed scientific equipment taken to the Moonduring the Apollo 12 mission, where the installation andoperation of this equipment was well-documented both remotelyand in situ by the astronauts who installed it.3.) The scientific instruments left there returned years ofvaluable data, and some are still in use today. The Apollomissions weren't simply publicity stunts; they were thepinnacle of human exploration ofanother world. From the very first crewed mission to land onthe lunar surface, we sent up a large suite of scientificinstruments to install on the lunar surface and measure itsproperties.Some of the more famous ones are listed below.Lunar seismometers, which were installed by Apollo 11, 12, 14,15, and 16, which transmitted data about the Moon's seismicactivity and moonquakes until the final station failed in 1977.The lunar laser ranging retroreflector arrays, which remainoperationaleven today, enable us to reflect lasers off of the reflectivesurfaces installed by the Apollo 11, 14, and 15 crews, as wellas the Soviet Lunokhod 2 rover, to measure the Earth-Moondistance to precisions of approximately 1 centimeter.The lunar laser ranging facility at Goddard, as shown here,enables us to track the lunar distance from Earth to~centimeter accuracy. The earliest laser reflectors wereinstalled on the Moon's surface as part of the Apollo program,and they remain in service today. The alignment between thepredicted and observed distances of the Moon over time is oneof science's great accomplishments in our understanding ofgravity.The SWC (solar wind composition) experiment taught us what the flux, andcomposition of solar wind particles that reach the Moon'ssurface are, since there's neither atmosphere nor a magneticfield nor Van Allen belts to interfere with the receivedparticles on the Moon.The SWS (solar wind spectrum) experiment did exactly the samething, except for the energy spectrum of the solar windparticles, rather thanthe composition measured by the SWC experiment.The LSM (lunar surface magnetometer) experiment was designed to measurethe lunar magnetic field, determining that the Moon does infact have magnetized features on the surface, but that themagnetism is not uniform across the Moon. Unlike Earth, we nowknow there is no coherentmagnetic field powered by an active core on the Moon.The LDD (lunar dust detector) experiment was initiallyinstalled to measure how solar panels degraded due to lunardust deposited from the ascent stage and other, subsequentsources. The experiments performed bythe Apollo program showed that we vastly overestimated dustdeposits, and instead enabled us to accurately measure theeffects of deposited lunar dust.An Apollo 14 astronaut deploys the Apollo Lunar SurfaceExperiments Package's power source (foreground) and "CentralStation" (background),where the Lunar Dust Detector was mounted. In 2012, the data from Apollo14's and 15's LDD experiment was restored and digitized,enabling scientists to perform the first long-term analysis oflunar dust depositi

on.

Post by a425coupleEach Apollo mission was outfitted with an array of experimentsto install and perform on the lunar surface. This is what theALSEP package, which stands for Apollo Lunar SurfaceExperiments Package, wasdesigned to do. The results from these experiments agree withone another and with the data collected from both previous andsubsequent experiments designed to measure a variety ofproperties of the Sun, Earth, Moon, and their interplay.The fact that we have the data from these experiments, and that many ofthem (and their successors on later Apollo missions and lunarlander missions) are still operational or otherwise in usetoday, provide us with extremely strong evidence that we did,in fact, land on the Moon.This image, from January 31, 1971, shows sunrise from AlanShepard's 12o'clock pan taken near the Lunar Module at the start of EVA-1(moonwalk). Without the Sun glare, we can see some detail onthe Cone-Crater ridge. The flag, S-Band antenna, ladder, andthe LRRR (LaserRanging Retroreflector) are all located in the west footpad.The MET (Modular Equipment Transporter) has not been deployedand is still folded up on the MESA (Modular Equipment StowageAssembly).4.) We have returned and analyzed samples from the Moon,learning unprecedented amounts about lunar geology and theMoon's history in theprocess. One of the primary goals of the Apollo mission was tocollect rocks from the lunar surface and return them to Earthfor laboratory analysis.Through this endeavor, we learned that the Moon and Earth,based on theisotope ratios of the elements present, likely share a commonorigin, which was likely caused by a cataclysmic impactapproximately 50 millionyears after the formation of the Solar System. Originallyformulated asthe Giant Impact Hypothesis, this has now evolved to describe a new typeof structure called a synestia, which generalized the GiantImpact scenario to better describe the full suite ofobservables. Without the Apollo missions, we might never haveuncovered the critical evidence supporting this scenario.A synestia will consist of a mixture of vaporized material fromboth proto-Earth and the impactor, which forms a large mooninside of it fromthe coalescence of moonlets. This is a general scenario capableof creating one single, large moon with the physical andchemical properties we observe ours to have.S. J. LOCK ET AL., J. GEOPHYS RESEARCH, 123, 4 (2018), P.910-951But there wasn't just a single mission, and the various Apollo missionslanded at different sites, enabling us to sample the propertiesof the lunar soil at a variety of locations. The final twoastronauts to ever walk on the Moon, Cernan and Schmitt, raninto quite a surprise when they did. Schmitt, the lonecivilian-astronaut (and only scientist) to travel to the Moon,was often described as the most business-like of allthe astronauts. Which is why it must have been such a shock to hear himOh, hey! Wait a minute… THERE IS ORANGE SOIL! It’s all ov

er! I stirred

Post by a425coupleit up with my feet!The dull, grey lunar soil you’re used to seeing — that we

Post by a425couplerich, orange landscape beneath.The orange soil, at the lower right of the image, really stands out whencompared to the colorations visible on the rest of the Moon. Apollo 17,perhaps because they had a geoscientist as one of theirmoonwalkers, wasable to spot this geological oddity that taught us so muchabout the Moon's origin and composition.Like any good scientist, or any good explorer, for that matter,Cernan and Schmitt took pictures, collected data, and broughtsamples back to Earth for further analysis. What could causeorange soil on the Moon, perhaps the most featureless of allthe large, airless rocks in our Solar System?What the analysis back on Earth revealed was fantastic: thiswas volcanic glass. What occurred was that molten lava from theinterior ofthe Moon erupted, some 3 to 4 billion years ago, up above theairless surface and into the vacuum of space. As the lavabecame exposed to thevacuum, it separated out into tiny fragments and froze, formingtiny beads of volcanic glass in orange and black colors. (Thetin in some ofthe fragments is what gives the orange color.)Olivine inclusions found in lunar samples have a spectacularlyhigh water concentration of 1,200 ppm. This is remarkable,because it's the same exact concentration as the water found interrestrial (Earth-based)olivine inclusions, pointing to a common origin for the Earthand the Moo

n.

Post by a425coupleE.H. HAURI ET AL., SCIENCE. 2011 JUL 8;333(6039):213–5In 2011, reanalysis of those samples found evidence that waterwas included in the volcanic eruption: with concentrations ofwater in the glass beads that were formed 50 times as great asthe expected dryness of the Moon.Olivine inclusions showed water present in concentrations up to1,200 parts-per-million. Most remarkably, the lunar sampleswe've found have indicated that Earth and the Moon have acommon origin, consistent witha giant impact that occurred only a few tens of millions ofyears into the birth of our Solar System. Without directsamples, obtained by the Apollo missions and brought back toEarth, we never would have been ableto draw such a startling, but spectacular, conclusion.A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or 'mug shot'of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parentboulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder,allowing for study of the type and rate of erosion acting onlunar rocks. A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows aclose-up view or 'mug shot'of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parentboulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder,allowing for study of the type and rate of erosion acting onlunar rocks. AFP / GETTY IMAGESThere are many different lines of evidence that point tohumanity's presence on the Moon. We landed there and can seethe evidence, directly, when we look with the appropriateresolution. We have extraordinary amounts of evidence, rangingfrom eyewitness testimony tothe data record tracking the missions to photographsdocumenting the trips, all supporting the fact that we landedand walked on the lunar surface. We have a slew of scientificinstruments that were installed, took data, and a few of whichcan still be seen and used today. And finally, we've broughtback lunar samples and learned about the Moon's history,composition, and likely origin from it.If you choose to be a doubter, that's your call: no one cantake your own freedom of choice away from you. But if youfollow the evidence, andthat's what science compels us to do, the only doubts thatremain are completely unreasonable. We really did land on theMoon, and this is thescience to back it up!Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my otherwork here. Ethan SiegelEthan Siegel ContributorI am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and science communicator,who professes physics and astronomy at various colleges. I havewon numerousawards for science writing si... Read MoreStarts With A BangStarts With A Bang Contributor GroupStarts With A Bang is dedicated to exploring the story of whatwe know about the Universe as well as how we know it, with afocus on physics, astronomy, and the scientif... Read More

My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbeliefthat anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I didcome across somebody who told me it could very well have been ahoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people havemeasured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon byastronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.

There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time. Andthey *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking it wouldhave taken more money and better technology than actually goingdid.Some people are just *stupid*.

Also, people seem to forget that we were in a space race with the Soviets.Hams may be able to D/F spacecraft, but the Soviets certainly could. If theUSSR could have shown that the US program was a fraud, they certainly wouldhave.

I like to say that 'sure it was fake; we hired Kubrick to film it (2001used part of his demo reel). But he was perfectionist, and insisted onfilming on location.'

Post by m***@sky.comMy first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbeliefthat anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I didcome across somebody who told me it could very well have been ahoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people havemeasured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon byastronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.

There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time. Andthey *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking it wouldhave taken more money and better technology than actually goingdid.Some people are just *stupid*.

Also, people seem to forget that we were in a space race with the Soviets.Hams may be able to D/F spacecraft, but the Soviets certainly could. If theUSSR could have shown that the US program was a fraud, they certainly wouldhave.I like to say that 'sure it was fake; we hired Kubrick to film it (2001used part of his demo reel). But he was perfectionist, and insisted onfilming on location.'

http://www.vgg.com/tr/tr_102201_moon.html

--Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservationinstinct are running screaming.

Post by m***@sky.comMy first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbeliefthat anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I didcome across somebody who told me it could very well have been ahoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people havemeasured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon byastronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.

There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time. Andthey *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking it wouldhave taken more money and better technology than actually goingdid.Some people are just *stupid*.

Also, people seem to forget that we were in a space race with the Soviets.Hams may be able to D/F spacecraft, but the Soviets certainly could. If theUSSR could have shown that the US program was a fraud, they certainly wouldhave.I like to say that 'sure it was fake; we hired Kubrick to film it (2001used part of his demo reel). But he was perfectionist, and insisted onfilming on location.'

Post by m***@sky.comMy first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbeliefthat anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I didcome across somebody who told me it could very well have been ahoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people havemeasured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon byastronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.

There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time. Andthey *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking it wouldhave taken more money and better technology than actually goingdid.Some people are just *stupid*.

Also, people seem to forget that we were in a space race with the Soviets.Hams may be able to D/F spacecraft, but the Soviets certainly could. If theUSSR could have shown that the US program was a fraud, they certainly wouldhave.I like to say that 'sure it was fake; we hired Kubrick to film it (2001used part of his demo reel). But he was perfectionist, and insisted onfilming on location.'

Post by m***@sky.comMy first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbeliefthat anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I didcome across somebody who told me it could very well have been ahoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people havemeasured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon byastronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.

There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time. Andthey *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking it wouldhave taken more money and better technology than actually goingdid.Some people are just *stupid*.

Also, people seem to forget that we were in a space race with the Soviets.Hams may be able to D/F spacecraft, but the Soviets certainly could. If theUSSR could have shown that the US program was a fraud, they certainly wouldhave.I like to say that 'sure it was fake; we hired Kubrick to film it (2001used part of his demo reel). But he was perfectionist, and insisted onfilming on location.'

http://www.vgg.com/tr/tr_102201_moon.html

Oh, dear.

Also, there's at least one shot where it is clear that what's*supposed* to be in zero-G was shot under full Earth gravity: theshuttle stewardess walking around the circular path to the nextairlock ... and there's a close-up of her foot in its Velcroshoe, flexing under its full weight.

Now, if I'd been on Kubrick's team, I would've urged him to putthe stewardess in a Peter Pan harness just for that one shot.

And, perhaps, to have molasses or something in the coffeepitcher, so it would flow slowly.

Post by m***@sky.comMy first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbeliefthat anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I didcome across somebody who told me it could very well have been ahoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people havemeasured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon byastronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.

There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time. Andthey *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking it wouldhave taken more money and better technology than actually goingdid.Some people are just *stupid*.

Also, people seem to forget that we were in a space race with the Soviets.Hams may be able to D/F spacecraft, but the Soviets certainly could. If theUSSR could have shown that the US program was a fraud, they certainly wouldhave.I like to say that 'sure it was fake; we hired Kubrick to film it (2001used part of his demo reel). But he was perfectionist, and insisted onfilming on location.'

http://www.vgg.com/tr/tr_102201_moon.html

Oh, dear.Also, there's at least one shot where it is clear that what's*supposed* to be in zero-G was shot under full Earth gravity: theshuttle stewardess walking around the circular path to the nextairlock ... and there's a close-up of her foot in its Velcroshoe, flexing under its full weight.Now, if I'd been on Kubrick's team, I would've urged him to putthe stewardess in a Peter Pan harness just for that one shot.And, perhaps, to have molasses or something in the coffeepitcher, so it would flow slowly.

That shot is one of the more problematic. It occurs in the small shuttletaking Heywood Floyd and his lunar base counterpart from Clavius to Tychoto see TMI-1 (the monolith). The shuttle is shown traveling, airplanestyle over the surface, and the interior has gravity. This doesn't makesense - its in a vacuum, and is either in orbit, with freefall, or ridingjets against the lunar gravity. But no jets are visible.

Post by a425couple58,553 viewsJun 25, 2019, 02:00amYes, The Apollo Moon Landings Really Did HappenStarts With A BangEthan Siegel ContributorStarts With A Bang Contributor GroupScienceThe Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first setfoot on anotherworld: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought aboutthese six successful landings are sometimes called intoquestion by 'skeptics,' but the evidence that they reallyoccurred is overwhelming. It has now been nearly 50 yearssince humanity first set foot on anotherworld: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought aboutthese six successful landings are sometimes called intoquestion by 'skeptics,' but the evidence that they reallyoccurred is overwhelming. NASA / APOLLO

15

Post by a425couple50 years ago, on July 20, 1969, humanity took our firstfootsteps on thesurface of another world. With Neil Armstrong's small stepfor a singleman, humankind took a great leap forward into the space age,demonstrating our potential for reaching other planets andextending thereach of human civilization far beyond our Earthly bonds.Generations later, in 2019, we're still dreaming oftraveling to other planets and other solar systemsthroughout the galaxy.Yet there are many who proudly declare that they don'tbelieve that human beings have ever left Earth. That NASAand the entire space program is nothing more than a ruse, ahoax, or a civilization-scale fraud. Like most people alivetoday, all six of humanity's Moon landingsoccurred before I was born. Still, I'm 100% positive theyreally did occur, and we have overwhelming evidence to proveit right at our fingertips.This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows BuzzAldrin planting the US flag on the Moon. Note the presenceof footprints in the foreground. These (and other) astronautfootprints, believe it or not, are still visible today.This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows BuzzAldrin planting the US flag on the Moon. Note the presenceof footprints in the foreground. These (and other) astronautfootprints, believe it or not, are still visible today. NASA/ APOLLO 111.) We can still see the evidence of the Apollo program onthe Moon, even today. Here on Earth, marks that we make onour world are temporary. Footsteps in the sand disappearafter mere hours at most, asthe motions of Earth's winds will erase any coherentpatterns that we can make, and will rearrange any dunes onthe same timescales. But on the Moon, there are no oceans,no atmosphere, and no forces to shift theparticles that compose the lunar regiolith.Whereas on Earth, we have an atmosphere, weather, liquidwater, and living species, the Moon only has the occasionalweak moonquake and therare visit from an extraterrestrial impactor or, in the caseof humanity, lander or visitor. If we truly did walk or landon the Moon, therefore, we'd expect that the evidence of ourpresence would still remain today.On Earth, footprints or other markings on the surface areonly temporary, and are easily erased by the winds, rains,and other surfaceactivity that comes about on a world with an atmosphere,oceans, and life. On the Moon, however, those conditions areabsent, and any alterations to the surface, even those madeby humans some ~50 years ago, should persist. GREG PROHL(L); BYRON JORJORIAN (R)The reason is straightforward: without terrestrial phenomenathat move and rearrange the particles on our surface âwithout winds, rains

Post by a425couplegrains of particles are via impacts. Unless there's an event that kicksup dust, which can then migrate and settle elsewhere acrossthe lunar surface, any changes we've made to the Moon shouldremain visible on thescale of a human lifetime.In other words, if we ever did truly land on the Moon, thetelltale evidence should still be there. All we'd have to dowas return to the sites where the documented landingsoccurred and photograph them today.This is not simply a thought experiment, but data that wasdecisively collected years ago, when NASA's LunarReconnaissance Orbiter mapped theentire Moon's surface. The Apollo landing sites, inparticular, are extremely well-documented.Apollo 12 was the first precision landing of humans on theMoon, and weexplored a much greater amount of the lunar surface thanduring the first landing. The dark grey markings on thesurface are astronaut footprints, which have stood the testof time on the Moon, as the processes that erase them onEarth are absent on the Moon. NASA / LRO /GSFC / ASUThe orbiter has not only photographed every single one ofthe Apollo landing sites, but three of them â Apollo 12,14, and 17 ï¿œâ¬

â were imaged

Post by a425couplewith the orbiter's Narrow Angle Camera and annotated,clearly showcasinga variety of human-created features. By making a close pass to the lunarsurface and photographing it with the best technology thatthe modern instruments LRO was equipped with could provide,the team was able to achieve resolutions as sharp as 35 cm(about 14") per pixel.When you examine the Apollo 12 landing site, visiblethe physical landing site (annotated with "Intrepid DescentStage"), the bright "L"-shaped feature near the ALSEP label(which is due to highly reflective power cables),the Surveyor 3 probe that landed on the Moon years earlier(in 1967), and a set of grey paths that look like dried-upcanals, which are actually astronaut footpaths!The Apollo 14 landing site is still intact, and our imagesof it in modern times still carry the legacy of thisnearly-50-years-old event. The lunar surface changes veryslowly over time, and the changes we madein 1971 are still perceptible, virtually unchanged, today.Apollo 14's landing site might be less visually spectacular,but is arguably far more famous. The module that landed onthe Moon (the Antares Descent Stage) is clearly visible, aswell as the ALSEP equipment, which has a differentconfiguration but still contains the highly reflectivecentral power station. However, the footpaths are perhapseven more spectacular and varied, belonging to none otherthan Edgar Mitchell and famed lunar golfer Alan Shepard.Although the golf balls that he hit were never recovered,and even the most distant golf shot probably didn't quitetravel for "miles and miles" as Shepard originally claimed,we can absolutely see the evidenceof the astronauts' presence. It may be nearly 50 yearslater, but because the Moon is an airless world with fewdisturbances, humanity's footprints have not yet beenerased.A photograph from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of thelanding site of Apollo 17. The tracks of the Lunar RovingVehicle (LRV) can be clearly seen, as can the vehicleitself.But compared to these earlier missions, the evidence that'sstill visible from Apollo 17 is nothing short ofspectacular. At this incredibly high resolution, expansivetraveling paths and equipment remnants left on the lunarsurface are unmistakable, courtesy of the last humans towalk on the Moon: Eugene "Gene" Cernan and Harrison "Jack"Schmitt.You can still see the descent module and the ALSEPequipment, but the footpaths appear far, far greater inscale and consist of two parallel tracks, plus there's abright spot labeled "LRV" in addition. Why? Because thefinal three Apollo missions contained an Apollo Lunar Rovingvehicle! Its tracks are distinctly different fromfootprints, and it enabled astronauts to explore muchgreater distances on the lunar surface. The tracks from theLRV extend for over 22 miles in total, reaching five milesaway from the landing site and extending far beyondthis image.2.) We have extensive photographic and video evidence fromthe Apollo missions themselves. How could the lunar modulehave ascended back off of the surface and returned theastronauts back to the orbiting module which would take themback to Earth? Exactly like the video above shows,from direct Apollo 17 footage. The hypergolic propellantsystem isn't based off of a single explosion, but rather aconstant thrust of ~16,000Newtons that was steadily delivered over a timespan of about 5 minutes.There's no exhaust trail because there's no lunaratmosphere, but you can track the spacecraft's acceleratedmotion for yourself with even basic modern software.This is enough force to launch the ascent stage upwards,increasing itsspeed by about 2,000-3,000 meters-per-second. This is enoughto enter lunar orbit and dock with the command and servicemodule, but not enoughto escape lunar orbit. This is why every lunar module, afterreturning the astronauts, crash-landed on the lunar surface.The locations of thelunar modules of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17 are all known,and the impactsites (along with the ejecta) are again visible in the LROdata.Here, the dark marks that fan out and appear to spray acrossthe lunar surface all originate from a single darker pointor smudge. This is thetelltale sign of a recent impact, and the four identifiedlocations where features such as this occur are consistentwith the four sites that correspond to the crash-landing ofthe lunar ascent stages of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17. Apollo11's and 16's locations have still never been determined.But there's even more evidence than that: there arethousands of photostaken by Apollo astronauts documenting the entire program.Years ago, NASA released all the photos of the twelve Apollomissions that made itto space on a publicly available Flickr photostream, sortedinto a series of incredible albums by mission. Some of thegreatest, most eye-opening photos, stories and quotesoriginated from the astronauts who journeyed on those trips.Apollo 10, known as the 'dress rehearsal' for the Moonlanding, was actually equipped with all the apparatuses thatwould have allowed themto land on the lunar surface themselves. They came closer tothe Moon than any previous crewed mission, and paved the wayfor the actual moonlanding which took place with Apollo 11 in July of 1969.Traveling through the atmosphere, both exiting the Earth andre-entering, sound horrifying and harrowing according toApollo 8's BillYou could see the flames and the outer skin of thespacecraft glowing; and burning, baseball-size chunks flyingoff behind us. It was an eeriefeeling, like being a gnat inside a blowtorch flame.Although there is no way to prove that these photos andvideos weren't faked, the technology and data to do sodidn't exist at the time. Somehow, it all lines up with thefull suite of improved data we've collected in thehalf-century since we last visited the Moon.Some of the deployed scientific equipment taken to the Moonduring the Apollo 12 mission, where the installation andoperation of this equipment was well-documented bothremotely and in situ by the astronauts who installed it.3.) The scientific instruments left there returned years ofvaluable data, and some are still in use today. The Apollomissions weren't simply publicity stunts; they were thepinnacle of human exploration ofanother world. From the very first crewed mission to land onthe lunar surface, we sent up a large suite of scientificinstruments to install on the lunar surface and measure itsproperties.Some of the more famous ones are listed below.Lunar seismometers, which were installed by Apollo 11, 12,14, 15, and 16, which transmitted data about the Moon'sseismic activity and moonquakes until the final stationfailed in 1977.The lunar laser ranging retroreflector arrays, which remain operationaleven today, enable us to reflect lasers off of thereflective surfaces installed by the Apollo 11, 14, and 15crews, as well as the Soviet Lunokhod 2 rover, to measurethe Earth-Moon distance to precisions of approximately 1centimeter.The lunar laser ranging facility at Goddard, as shown here,enables us to track the lunar distance from Earth to~centimeter accuracy. The earliest laser reflectors wereinstalled on the Moon's surface as part of the Apolloprogram, and they remain in service today. The alignmentbetween the predicted and observed distances of the Moonover time is one of science's great accomplishments in ourunderstanding of gravity.The SWC (solar wind composition) experiment taught us whatthe flux, andcomposition of solar wind particles that reach the Moon'ssurface are, since there's neither atmosphere nor a magneticfield nor Van Allen belts to interfere with the receivedparticles on the Moon.The SWS (solar wind spectrum) experiment did exactly thesame thing, except for the energy spectrum of the solar windparticles, rather thanthe composition measured by the SWC experiment.The LSM (lunar surface magnetometer) experiment was designed to measurethe lunar magnetic field, determining that the Moon does infact have magnetized features on the surface, but that themagnetism is not uniform across the Moon. Unlike Earth, wenow know there is no coherentmagnetic field powered by an active core on the Moon.The LDD (lunar dust detector) experiment was initiallyinstalled to measure how solar panels degraded due to lunardust deposited from the ascent stage and other, subsequentsources. The experiments performed bythe Apollo program showed that we vastly overestimated dustdeposits, and instead enabled us to accurately measure theeffects of deposited lunar dust.An Apollo 14 astronaut deploys the Apollo Lunar SurfaceExperiments Package's power source (foreground) and "CentralStation" (background),where the Lunar Dust Detector was mounted. In 2012, the data from Apollo14's and 15's LDD experiment was restored and digitized,enabling scientists to perform the first long-term analysisof lunar dust depositi

on.

Post by a425coupleEach Apollo mission was outfitted with an array ofexperiments to install and perform on the lunar surface.This is what the ALSEP package, which stands for ApolloLunar Surface Experiments Package, wasdesigned to do. The results from these experiments agreewith one another and with the data collected from bothprevious and subsequent experiments designed to measure avariety of properties of the Sun, Earth, Moon, and theirinterplay.The fact that we have the data from these experiments, andthat many ofthem (and their successors on later Apollo missions andlunar lander missions) are still operational or otherwise inuse today, provide us with extremely strong evidence that wedid, in fact, land on the Moon.This image, from January 31, 1971, shows sunrise from AlanShepard's 12o'clock pan taken near the Lunar Module at the start ofEVA-1 (moonwalk). Without the Sun glare, we can see somedetail on the Cone-Crater ridge. The flag, S-Band antenna,ladder, and the LRRR (LaserRanging Retroreflector) are all located in the west footpad.The MET (Modular Equipment Transporter) has not beendeployed and is still folded up on the MESA (ModularEquipment Stowage Assembly).4.) We have returned and analyzed samples from the Moon,learning unprecedented amounts about lunar geology and theMoon's history in theprocess. One of the primary goals of the Apollo mission wasto collect rocks from the lunar surface and return them toEarth for laboratory analysis.Through this endeavor, we learned that the Moon and Earth,based on theisotope ratios of the elements present, likely share acommon origin, which was likely caused by a cataclysmicimpact approximately 50 millionyears after the formation of the Solar System. Originallyformulated asthe Giant Impact Hypothesis, this has now evolved todescribe a new typeof structure called a synestia, which generalized the GiantImpact scenario to better describe the full suite ofobservables. Without the Apollo missions, we might neverhave uncovered the critical evidence supporting thisscenario.A synestia will consist of a mixture of vaporized materialfrom both proto-Earth and the impactor, which forms a largemoon inside of it fromthe coalescence of moonlets. This is a general scenariocapable of creating one single, large moon with the physicaland chemical properties we observe ours to have.S. J. LOCK ET AL., J. GEOPHYS RESEARCH, 123, 4 (2018), P.910-951But there wasn't just a single mission, and the variousApollo missionslanded at different sites, enabling us to sample theproperties of the lunar soil at a variety of locations. Thefinal two astronauts to ever walk on the Moon, Cernan andSchmitt, ran into quite a surprise when they did. Schmitt,the lone civilian-astronaut (and only scientist) to travelto the Moon, was often described as the most business-likeof allthe astronauts. Which is why it must have been such a shock to hear himOh, hey! Wait a minuteâŠ THERE IS ORANGE SOIL! Itâs all

Post by a425couplerich, orange landscape beneath.The orange soil, at the lower right of the image, reallystands out whencompared to the colorations visible on the rest of the Moon. Apollo 17,perhaps because they had a geoscientist as one of theirmoonwalkers, wasable to spot this geological oddity that taught us so muchabout the Moon's origin and composition.Like any good scientist, or any good explorer, for thatmatter, Cernan and Schmitt took pictures, collected data,and brought samples back to Earth for further analysis. Whatcould cause orange soil on the Moon, perhaps the mostfeatureless of all the large, airless rocks in our SolarSystem?What the analysis back on Earth revealed was fantastic: thiswas volcanic glass. What occurred was that molten lava fromthe interior ofthe Moon erupted, some 3 to 4 billion years ago, up abovethe airless surface and into the vacuum of space. As thelava became exposed to thevacuum, it separated out into tiny fragments and froze,forming tiny beads of volcanic glass in orange and blackcolors. (The tin in some ofthe fragments is what gives the orange color.)Olivine inclusions found in lunar samples have aspectacularly high water concentration of 1,200 ppm. This isremarkable, because it's the same exact concentration as thewater found in terrestrial (Earth-based)olivine inclusions, pointing to a common origin for theEarth and the Moo

n.

Post by a425coupleE.H. HAURI ET AL., SCIENCE. 2011 JUL 8;333(6039):213â5In 2011, reanalysis of those samples found evidence thatwater was included in the volcanic eruption: withconcentrations of water in the glass beads that were formed50 times as great as the expected dryness of the Moon.Olivine inclusions showed water present in concentrations upto 1,200 parts-per-million. Most remarkably, the lunarsamples we've found have indicated that Earth and the Moonhave a common origin, consistent witha giant impact that occurred only a few tens of millions ofyears into the birth of our Solar System. Without directsamples, obtained by the Apollo missions and brought back toEarth, we never would have been ableto draw such a startling, but spectacular, conclusion.A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or 'mug shot'of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragmentfrom a parentboulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to theboulder, allowing for study of the type and rate of erosionacting on lunar rocks. A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972shows a close-up view or 'mug shot'of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragmentfrom a parentboulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to theboulder, allowing for study of the type and rate of erosionacting on lunar rocks. AFP / GETTY IMAGESThere are many different lines of evidence that point tohumanity's presence on the Moon. We landed there and can seethe evidence, directly, when we look with the appropriateresolution. We have extraordinary amounts of evidence,ranging from eyewitness testimony tothe data record tracking the missions to photographsdocumenting the trips, all supporting the fact that welanded and walked on the lunar surface. We have a slew ofscientific instruments that were installed, took data, and afew of which can still be seen and used today. And finally,we've brought back lunar samples and learned about theMoon's history, composition, and likely origin from it.If you choose to be a doubter, that's your call: no one cantake your own freedom of choice away from you. But if youfollow the evidence, andthat's what science compels us to do, the only doubts thatremain are completely unreasonable. We really did land onthe Moon, and this is thescience to back it up!Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of myother work here. Ethan SiegelEthan Siegel ContributorI am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and sciencecommunicator, who professes physics and astronomy at variouscolleges. I have won numerousawards for science writing si... Read MoreStarts With A BangStarts With A Bang Contributor GroupStarts With A Bang is dedicated to exploring the story ofwhat we know about the Universe as well as how we know it,with a focus on physics, astronomy, and the scientif...Read More

My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes wasdisbelief that anybody was really skeptical, but a few yearsago I did come across somebody who told me it could very wellhave been a hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him thatpeople have measured the distance to laser reflectors left onthe moon by astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.

There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time.And they *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking itwould have taken more money and better technology than actuallygoing did.Some people are just *stupid*.

Also, people seem to forget that we were in a space race withthe Soviets. Hams may be able to D/F spacecraft, but the Sovietscertainly could. If the USSR could have shown that the USprogram was a fraud, they certainly would have.

Unless they, too, were/are part of the conspiracy.

There's literlly *no* evidence you can possibly offer that will notbe, in the minds of the delusional, proof of hte conspiracy. If youflew them to the landing site in person, they'd claim you set itall up as part of the ongoing conspiracy.

The idea of a conspiracy aimed at them makes them feel important,that so much effort is put into fooling them, and that is *far*more important to some people than reality.--Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider thanLynn:https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."-- David Bilek

On that subject, of course, you're in good company."There are two things that are infinite: the Universe, and humanstupidity. And I'm not too sure about the Universe." - AlbertEinstein

Which Einstein never said.So, case in point.

I had never thought that *this* quote needed investigating! But of course, Google quickly confirmed you:

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/04/universe-einstein/

...the origin is a book by Frederick S. Perls, where he wrote

it is not surprising to learn that a great astronomer said: “Two things areinfinite, as far as we know – the universe and human stupidity.” To-day we knowthat this statement is not quite correct. Einstein has proved that the universeis limited.

So collapsing the quote and attributing it to Einstein made it shorter forpurposes of repetition. Except that Perls *himself* performed thetransformation, which is surprising.

Found a real quote from Einstein, from a 1931 speech he gave to students at the California Institute of Technology:

Why does this magnificent applied science which saves work and makes life easierbring us so little happiness? The simple answer runs: Because we have not yetlearned to make sensible use of it. In war it serves that we may poison andmutilate each other. In peace it has made our lives hurried and uncertain. Insteadof freeing us in great measure from spiritually exhausting labor, it has made meninto slaves of machinery, who for the most part complete their monotonous longday's work with disgust and must continually tremble for their poor rations.

Now, there is something I agree with.

I don't think that means that we "shouldn't" use science to make weapons of war.As long as we can't stop the _other fellow_ from making war, the countries thatbelieve in human freedom, and in not committing aggression, must be the onesthat are stronger.

So there isn't some magic formula to apply science more sensibly that one humancommunity could unilaterally apply that would end the misuse of science for war.

But I think the outlook for the use of science in peace is brighter.

The obvious idea that suggests itself over and over for dealing with that isadopting some sort of socialism. But history shows us that demagogues whopromise the poor they will rob the rich on their behalf never enhance humanfreedom.

Can we more soberly improve our economic system and make it serve us better?

I think we can. In countries like the United States, endowed with vast naturalresources, there is simply no excuse for widespread poverty.

The people of a nation have the ability to work. If some of them are idled byunemployment, the wealth of the nation is decreased, because a valuable input iswasted.

Unemployment means that someone does not have the opportunity to translate his labor into wealth for himself. This exists when a country is so populated that there is no longer empty land for homesteading, when people can't feed themselves by going into the forests to hunt, and so on. Instead, what was once provided by Nature is now provided by capital.

This is what has led to theories, like the "labor theory of value", that claimthat capital should not be permitted to earn any rewards - that all the valuecreated by production should go exclusively to laborers, so that there is enoughmoney to buy what is produced.

However, capital goods are among the things made by workers - and capitalresults from people saving what they earned from labor. So the free enterprisesystem that lets people earn more with the tools they've bought doesn't createsome voracious money sink.

Making Capital the Rodney Dangerfield of production does not lead to a solution.

One does not need the economic totalitarianism of socialism to avoid theeconomic anarchy we have now that has led to mass unemployment.

We simply need to govern the economy to a reasonable extent.

That means taking control of the nation's borders. There is a voracious moneysink in operation in plain sight. The Western industrialized countries, withconvertible currencies, are, by the treaties of the current trade regime,prevented from raising tariffs.

So if cheap imports encourage the people of a country, as individuals,rationally buying what is cheapest with their limited wages, to lead the countryto spend more on imports than it earns on exports... the value of the currencyfalls, or otherwise corrections must be made that throw millions out of work.

If, instead, the economy accurately conveyed the 'information' that foreignexchange is scarce, strictly limited by what is earned from exports, whilecurrency used within the domestic economy is plentiful, limited only byavailable labor and resources - then, if a world economic collapse took awaydemand for exports, a country's domestic economy could go on humming vigorously,without any need for anyone to constrain it in order to reduce imports.

Imports would be reduced automatically by their being less foreign exchange incirculation.

So basically you would use paper money to buy American - but to buy anythingfrom another country, you would have to have gold coin to pay for it.

Donald J. Trump at least began to acknowledge this truth, which is instinctivelyobvious to many working men, however anathema it is to big business and economictheorists.

Post by Robert CarnegieTechnological improvement in farming means that we don'tall have to be farmers for everybody to be fed. Farmingis tough. Some people seem to enjoy it; good for you.Some people argue that farming is a mistake anyway andwe should have stayed hunter-gatherers. I think they maybe considered to have lost the argument.

If they've lived past the age of 30 or so, they certainly have.--Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider thanLynn:https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."-- David Bilek

Post by Robert CarnegieTechnological improvement in farming means that we don'tall have to be farmers for everybody to be fed. Farmingis tough. Some people seem to enjoy it; good for you.Some people argue that farming is a mistake anyway andwe should have stayed hunter-gatherers. I think they maybe considered to have lost the argument.

Post by Robert CarnegieTechnological improvement in farming means that we don'tall have to be farmers for everybody to be fed. Farmingis tough. Some people seem to enjoy it; good for you.Some people argue that farming is a mistake anyway andwe should have stayed hunter-gatherers. I think they maybe considered to have lost the argument.

Just ask them to lead the cave bear hunt.

Forsyth argues in "A Short History of Drunkenness" that humansbecame farmers because the wanted to get drunk, which means thatthey needed a steady supply of carbohydrates, which means thatthey needed to become farmers. You might argue that he is not ahistorian, but I find the idea quite convincing.

Post by Robert CarnegieTechnological improvement in farming means that we don'tall have to be farmers for everybody to be fed. Farmingis tough. Some people seem to enjoy it; good for you.Some people argue that farming is a mistake anyway andwe should have stayed hunter-gatherers. I think they maybe considered to have lost the argument.

Just ask them to lead the cave bear hunt.

Forsyth argues in "A Short History of Drunkenness" that humansbecame farmers because the wanted to get drunk, which means thatthey needed a steady supply of carbohydrates, which means thatthey needed to become farmers. You might argue that he is not ahistorian, but I find the idea quite convincing.So, make that "beer hunt", then.

Or the farmer might be willing to trade some beer for some cave bearfrom the survivors of the cave bear hunt.

My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbeliefthat anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I didcome across somebody who told me it could very well have been ahoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people havemeasured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon byastronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.

There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time. Andthey *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking it wouldhave taken more money and better technology than actually goingdid.Some people are just *stupid*.

HOLLY MOLLEY Ninapenda!

You complain about my long messages,why didn't you trim it down a bit?

My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes wasdisbelief that anybody was really skeptical, but a few yearsago I did come across somebody who told me it could very wellhave been a hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him thatpeople have measured the distance to laser reflectors left onthe moon by astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.

There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time.And they *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking itwould have taken more money and better technology than actuallygoing did.Some people are just *stupid*.

HOLLY MOLLEY Ninapenda!You complain about my long messages,why didn't you trim it down a bit?

My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbelief that anybod=y was really skeptical, but a few years ago I did come across somebody who =told me it could very well have been a hoax, and appeared to be serious.

About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced that the moonlandings were fake.

He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really needed to startwatching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own conclusions.

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced that the moonlandings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really needed to startwatching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own conclusions.

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced thatthe moon landings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really neededto start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own conclusions.

I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth watching.

There's loonier out there.--Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider thanLynn:https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."-- David Bilek

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced thatthe moon landings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really neededto start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own conclusions.

I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth watching.

There's loonier out there.

True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be worth taking seriously.

IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator. However, I think it'shighly premature to conclude that everyone who voted for Trump believes inconspiracy theories and so on.

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convincedthat the moon landings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that I reallyneeded to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your ownconclusions.

I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth watching.

There's loonier out there.

True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be worthtaking seriously.

Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupid isjust as good a reason.

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convincedthat the moon landings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that I reallyneeded to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your ownconclusions.

I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth watching.

There's loonier out there.

True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be worthtaking seriously.

Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupid isjust as good a reason.

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convincedthat the moon landings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that I reallyneeded to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your ownconclusions.

I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth watching.

There's loonier out there.

True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be worth taking seriously.

Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupid isjust as good a reason.

IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.

I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if you hada truth serum, he would, too.

However, I think it's highly premature to conclude thateveryone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy theoriesand so on.

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convincedthat the moon landings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that I reallyneeded to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your ownconclusions.

I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth watching.

There's loonier out there.

True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be worth taking seriously.

Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupid isjust as good a reason.

IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.

I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if you hada truth serum, he would, too.

However, I think it's highly premature to conclude thateveryone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy theoriesand so on.

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convincedthat the moon landings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that I reallyneeded to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your ownconclusions.

I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worthwatching.

There's loonier out there.

True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not beworth taking seriously.

Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupidis just as good a reason.

IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.

I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if youhad a truth serum, he would, too.

However, I think it's highly premature to conclude thateveryone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy theoriesand so on.

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convincedthat the moon landings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that I reallyneeded to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your ownconclusions.

I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worthwatching.

There's loonier out there.

True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not beworth taking seriously.

Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupidis just as good a reason.

IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.

I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if youhad a truth serum, he would, too.

However, I think it's highly premature to conclude thateveryone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy theoriesand so on.

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convincedthat the moon landings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that I reallyneeded to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your ownconclusions.

I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worthwatching.

There's loonier out there.

True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not beworth taking seriously.

Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupidis just as good a reason.

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convincedthat the moon landings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that I reallyneeded to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your ownconclusions.

I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worthwatching.

There's loonier out there.

True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not beworth taking seriously.

Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupidis just as good a reason.

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convincedthat the moon landings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that I reallyneeded to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your ownconclusions.

I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worthwatching.

There's loonier out there.

True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not beworth taking seriously.

Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupidis just as good a reason.

Apparently, Alan is so stupid than reading his posts makes otherpeople stupid.--Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider thanLynn:https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United Statesillegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convincedthat the moon landings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that I reallyneeded to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your ownconclusions.

I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worthwatching.

There's loonier out there.

True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not beworth taking seriously.

Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupidis just as good a reason.

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convincedthat the moon landings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that I reallyneeded to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your ownconclusions.

I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worthwatching.

There's loonier out there.

True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not beworth taking seriously.

Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupidis just as good a reason.

IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.

I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if youhad a truth serum, he would, too.

However, I think it's highly premature to conclude thateveryone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy theoriesand so on.

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convincedthat the moon landings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that I reallyneeded to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your ownconclusions.

I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worthwatching.

There's loonier out there.

True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not beworth taking seriously.

Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupidis just as good a reason.

Can somebody translate that into sane people language? Is it missingsome words?--Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider thanLynn:https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United Statesillegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who wasconvinced that the moon landings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that I reallyneeded to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw yourown conclusions.

I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worthwatching.

There's loonier out there.

True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not beworth taking seriously.

Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all.Stupid is just as good a reason.

IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.

I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if youhad a truth serum, he would, too.

However, I think it's highly premature to conclude thateveryone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracytheories and so on.

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider thanLynn:https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United Statesillegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who wasconvinced that the moon landings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that I reallyneeded to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw yourown conclusions.

I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worthwatching.

There's loonier out there.

True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not beworth taking seriously.

Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all.Stupid is just as good a reason.

Post by Alan Baker'Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the Presidentcommitted a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'Do you accept that that is a direct quote from the Mueller report?

But because "innocent until proven guilty", that *is* exoneration. Donald Trumpsaid so himself!

Post by Alan Baker'Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that thePresident committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'Do you accept that that is a direct quote from the Muellerreport?

But because "innocent until proven guilty", that *is*exoneration. Donald Trump said so himself!

I realize the sheeple of Canada don't really understand the conceptof constitutional rights, but in the US, we do.--Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider thanLynn:https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United Statesillegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Post by Alan Baker'Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that thePresident committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'Do you accept that that is a direct quote from the Muellerreport?

But because "innocent until proven guilty", that *is*exoneration. Donald Trump said so himself!

I realize the sheeple of Canada don't really understand the conceptof constitutional rights, but in the US, we do.

I'm not saying that Donald Trump should be thrown in jail, or even impeached,merely because he can't prove himself innocent, if that is how you understood mypost.

That the Muller report did not have conclusive proof of illegal activity topresent, however, does not imply that a proper criminal investigation would beunable to do so. Even if it does reduce the probability that one would find suchevidence. Thus, I fail to see that the term "exonerate" applies.

Post by Alan Baker'Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that thePresident committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'Do you accept that that is a direct quote from the Mueller report?

But because "innocent until proven guilty", that *is*exoneration. Donald Trump said so himself!

I realize the sheeple of Canada don't really understand the conceptof constitutional rights, but in the US, we do.

I'm not saying that Donald Trump should be thrown in jail, or even impeached,merely because he can't prove himself innocent, if that is how you understood mypost.That the Muller report did not have conclusive proof of illegal activity topresent, however, does not imply that a proper criminal investigation would beunable to do so. Even if it does reduce the probability that one would find suchevidence. Thus, I fail to see that the term "exonerate" applies.John Savard

I find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC -- would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so. All that is required is an absence of guilt.

Post by Alan Baker'Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that thePresident committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'Do you accept that that is a direct quote from the Muellerreport?

But because "innocent until proven guilty", that *is*exoneration. Donald Trump said so himself!

I realize the sheeple of Canada don't really understand the conceptof constitutional rights, but in the US, we do.

I'm not saying that Donald Trump should be thrown in jail, or even impeached,merely because he can't prove himself innocent, if that is how you understood mypost.That the Muller report did not have conclusive proof of illegal activity topresent, however, does not imply that a proper criminal investigation would beunable to do so. Even if it does reduce the probability that one would find suchevidence. Thus, I fail to see that the term "exonerate" applies.John Savard

I find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC -- would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so. All that is required is an absence of guilt.

Literally no one in the media has said or even implied that that I've seen.

Post by o***@gmail.comI find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.All that is required is an absence of guilt.

For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vastresponsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President ofthe United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as thatis even possible, of course.

Post by o***@gmail.comI find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.All that is required is an absence of guilt.

For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vastresponsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President ofthe United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as thatis even possible, of course.

Or one who will lie, cheat, and steal in the correct direction.Honorable people do not do well in politics.

Post by J. ClarkeOr one who will lie, cheat, and steal in the correct direction.Honorable people do not do well in politics.

As Ilhan Omar actually wasn't born in the United States - unlike three other womenin Congress - at least one person whose efforts might be in a more wrong directionthan those of Donald Trump does not need to be worried about.

Although she does not seem to be the kind of person who lies, cheats, and stealsmuch. Some of her statements are untrue, but I see no reason to doubt that shesincerely believes them.

Post by J. ClarkeOr one who will lie, cheat, and steal in the correct direction.Honorable people do not do well in politics.

As Ilhan Omar actually wasn't born in the United States - unlike three other womenin Congress - at least one person whose efforts might be in a more wrong directionthan those of Donald Trump does not need to be worried about.Although she does not seem to be the kind of person who lies, cheats, and stealsmuch. Some of her statements are untrue, but I see no reason to doubt that shesincerely believes them.

And she is a fool who doesn't understand that US aid to Israel is aleash.

Post by J. ClarkeOr one who will lie, cheat, and steal in the correct direction.Honorable people do not do well in politics.

As Ilhan Omar actually wasn't born in the United States - unlikethree other women in Congress - at least one person whose effortsmight be in a more wrong direction than those of Donald Trump doesnot need to be worried about.Although she does not seem to be the kind of person who lies,cheats, and steals much. Some of her statements are untrue, but Isee no reason to doubt that she sincerely believes them.

And she is a fool who doesn't understand that US aid to Israel is aleash.

With the US wearing the collar?Epstein invested in a startup headed by Ehud Barak. Haaretz 2015.

Post by J. ClarkeOr one who will lie, cheat, and steal in the correct direction.Honorable people do not do well in politics.

As Ilhan Omar actually wasn't born in the United States - unlike three other womenin Congress - at least one person whose efforts might be in a more wrong directionthan those of Donald Trump does not need to be worried about.Although she does not seem to be the kind of person who lies, cheats, and stealsmuch. Some of her statements are untrue, but I see no reason to doubt that shesincerely believes them.

And she is a fool who doesn't understand that US aid to Israel is aleash.

Post by J. ClarkeOr one who will lie, cheat, and steal in the correct direction.Honorable people do not do well in politics.

As Ilhan Omar actually wasn't born in the United States - unlike three other womenin Congress - at least one person whose efforts might be in a more wrong directionthan those of Donald Trump does not need to be worried about.Although she does not seem to be the kind of person who lies, cheats, and stealsmuch. Some of her statements are untrue, but I see no reason to doubt that shesincerely believes them.

And she is a fool who doesn't understand that US aid to Israel is aleash.

Post by o***@gmail.comI find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.All that is required is an absence of guilt.

For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vastresponsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President ofthe United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as thatis even possible, of course.That is a distinction that seems lost on some.John Savard

In an atmosphere of no consequences for unsubstantiated allegations -- sometimes being viewed as heroic -- those standards, sadly, no longer exist.

Post by o***@gmail.comI find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.All that is required is an absence of guilt.

For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vastresponsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President ofthe United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as thatis even possible, of course.That is a distinction that seems lost on some.John Savard

In an atmosphere of no consequences for unsubstantiated allegations -- sometimes being viewed as heroic -- those standards, sadly, no longer exist.

We've seen what happens to an honest man in the White House. JimmyCarter lasted one term and accomplished little that had any lastingeffect.

Post by o***@gmail.comI find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.All that is required is an absence of guilt.

For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vastresponsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President ofthe United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as thatis even possible, of course.That is a distinction that seems lost on some.John Savard

In an atmosphere of no consequences for unsubstantiated allegations -- sometimes being viewed as heroic -- those standards, sadly, no longer exist.

We've seen what happens to an honest man in the White House. JimmyCarter lasted one term and accomplished little that had any lastingeffect.

Post by o***@gmail.comI find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.All that is required is an absence of guilt.

For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vastresponsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President ofthe United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as thatis even possible, of course.That is a distinction that seems lost on some.John Savard

In an atmosphere of no consequences for unsubstantiated allegations -- sometimes being viewed as heroic -- those standards, sadly, no longer exist.

We've seen what happens to an honest man in the White House. JimmyCarter lasted one term and accomplished little that had any lastingeffect.

He didn't fail because he was honest.He failed because he was ignorant and condescending.

I never found Carter to be either. He knew how to grow peanuts, run anuclear reactor, and conduct a successful political campaign. That isnot an ignorant person. And I do not recall him ever being"condescending". He tried too hard to go the other way sometimes. Andhe lacked a certain forcefulness that is sometimes needed.

Post by J. ClarkeI never found Carter to be either. He knew how to grow peanuts, run anuclear reactor, and conduct a successful political campaign. That isnot an ignorant person. And I do not recall him ever being"condescending". He tried too hard to go the other way sometimes. Andhe lacked a certain forcefulness that is sometimes needed.

If you want a condescending politician, you should look at Pierre ElliotTrudeau.

Carter had the very bad luck to be stuck with problems that others as Presidentwould also have found difficult to resolve: the Iran hostage crisis, and theenergy crisis. (Although a different President did resolve the former withouteven having to do anything beyond getting elected; but had the hostages beentaken while he was in office, it might have been more difficult.)

Post by J. ClarkeI never found Carter to be either. He knew how to grow peanuts, run anuclear reactor, and conduct a successful political campaign. That isnot an ignorant person. And I do not recall him ever being"condescending". He tried too hard to go the other way sometimes. Andhe lacked a certain forcefulness that is sometimes needed.

If you want a condescending politician, you should look at Pierre ElliotTrudeau.Carter had the very bad luck to be stuck with problems that others as Presidentwould also have found difficult to resolve: the Iran hostage crisis, and theenergy crisis. (Although a different President did resolve the former withouteven having to do anything beyond getting elected; but had the hostages beentaken while he was in office, it might have been more difficult.)

The big problem with Carter and the Iran Hostage Crisis was that hedidn't put someone in charge who knew what they were doing and thenback him or her up. So it ended up a huge boondoggle with everyservice being part of the show.

Post by J. ClarkeI never found Carter to be either. He knew how to grow peanuts, run anuclear reactor, and conduct a successful political campaign. That isnot an ignorant person. And I do not recall him ever being"condescending". He tried too hard to go the other way sometimes. Andhe lacked a certain forcefulness that is sometimes needed.

If you want a condescending politician, you should look at Pierre ElliotTrudeau.Carter had the very bad luck to be stuck with problems that others as Presidentwould also have found difficult to resolve: the Iran hostage crisis, and theenergy crisis. (Although a different President did resolve the former withouteven having to do anything beyond getting elected; but had the hostages beentaken while he was in office, it might have been more difficult.)

Reagan's campaign manager travelled secretly to Madrid, there's suggestions that he was negotiating with the Iranians to hold off on releasing the hostages.His travel is confirmed by a cable from the Madrid Embassy.Then, after the campaign manager was installed as the director of the CIA, he gave the green light for Israeli weapon sales to Iran...

Post by o***@gmail.comI find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.All that is required is an absence of guilt.

For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vastresponsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President ofthe United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as thatis even possible, of course.That is a distinction that seems lost on some.John Savard

In an atmosphere of no consequences for unsubstantiated allegations -- sometimes being viewed as heroic -- those standards, sadly, no longer exist.

We've seen what happens to an honest man in the White House. JimmyCarter lasted one term and accomplished little that had any lastingeffect.

He didn't fail because he was honest.He failed because he was ignorant and condescending.

I never found Carter to be either. He knew how to grow peanuts, run anuclear reactor, and conduct a successful political campaign. That isnot an ignorant person. And I do not recall him ever being"condescending". He tried too hard to go the other way sometimes. Andhe lacked a certain forcefulness that is sometimes needed.

He wasn't ignorant, but he fell to a candidate whose policy goals,even if you disagreed with them, were easily grasped by an electoratethat wanted something different. Carter was more about process thanpolicy, and his policies didn't get the job done.

Also, the "misery index" - add the inflation rate and theunemployment rate - was either side of 20 during 1980.

Post by o***@gmail.comI find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.All that is required is an absence of guilt.

For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vastresponsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President ofthe United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as thatis even possible, of course.That is a distinction that seems lost on some.John Savard

In an atmosphere of no consequences for unsubstantiated allegations -- sometimes being viewed as heroic -- those standards, sadly, no longer exist.

We've seen what happens to an honest man in the White House. JimmyCarter lasted one term and accomplished little that had any lastingeffect.

He didn't fail because he was honest.He failed because he was ignorant and condescending.

I never found Carter to be either. He knew how to grow peanuts, run anuclear reactor, and conduct a successful political campaign. That isnot an ignorant person. And I do not recall him ever being"condescending". He tried too hard to go the other way sometimes. Andhe lacked a certain forcefulness that is sometimes needed.

He wasn't ignorant, but he fell to a candidate whose policy goals,even if you disagreed with them, were easily grasped by an electoratethat wanted something different. Carter was more about process thanpolicy, and his policies didn't get the job done.Also, the "misery index" - add the inflation rate and theunemployment rate - was either side of 20 during 1980.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)People voted their pocketbooks.

As an inspirational speaker Carter was about a zero. I remember himgoing on and on and on about "malaise". OK, Jimbo, we _know_ there's"malaise", now tell us how to _FIX_ it.

Post by o***@gmail.comI find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.All that is required is an absence of guilt.

For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vastresponsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President ofthe United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as thatis even possible, of course.That is a distinction that seems lost on some.John Savard

In an atmosphere of no consequences for unsubstantiated allegations -- sometimes being viewed as heroic -- those standards, sadly, no longer exist.

We've seen what happens to an honest man in the White House. JimmyCarter lasted one term and accomplished little that had any lastingeffect.

He didn't fail because he was honest.He failed because he was ignorant and condescending.

I never found Carter to be either. He knew how to grow peanuts, run anuclear reactor, and conduct a successful political campaign. That isnot an ignorant person. And I do not recall him ever being"condescending". He tried too hard to go the other way sometimes. Andhe lacked a certain forcefulness that is sometimes needed.

It is my understanding that Jimmy Carter does not know how to run anuclear reactor. He was the last of the diesel electric submarinecaptains. Three Mile Island happened on his presidential watch and hehad people investigate it. He did not finish nuclear reactor school.

Post by J. ClarkeI never found Carter to be either. He knew how to grow peanuts, run anuclear reactor, and conduct a successful political campaign. That isnot an ignorant person. And I do not recall him ever being"condescending". He tried too hard to go the other way sometimes. Andhe lacked a certain forcefulness that is sometimes needed.

It is my understanding that Jimmy Carter does not know how to run anuclear reactor. He was the last of the diesel electric submarinecaptains. Three Mile Island happened on his presidential watch and hehad people investigate it. He did not finish nuclear reactor school.

You should really try to get your facts straight; and learn to readwith comprehension. Running a nuclear reactor and conning a [nuclear] submarinearen't the same thing.

16 OCT 1952 - 08 OCT 1953 -- Duty with US Atomic Energy Commission (Division ofReactor Development, Schenectady Operations Office) From 3 NOV 1952 to 1 MAR 1953he served on temporary duty with Naval Reactors Branch, US Atomic Energy Commission,Washington, D.C. "assisting in the design and development of nuclear propulsionplants for naval vessels." From 1 MAR 1953 to 8 OCT 1953 he was under instructionto become an engineering officer for a nuclear power plant. He also assisted insetting up on-the-job training for the enlisted men being instructed in nuclearpropulsion for the USS Seawolf (SSN575).

President Carter inherited a shitty economy, an incipient externally imposedenergy crisis, the shell of the post-vietnam military complete with incompetentleadership, and his predecessor's unfortunate meddling in the middle east.

He did the best he could (and certainly better than his prececessors would have)given the circumstances.

President Carter inherited a s****** economy, an incipient externally imposedenergy crisis, the shell of the post-vietnam military complete with incompetentleadership, and his predecessor's unfortunate meddling in the middle east.He did the best he could (and certainly better than his prececessors would have)given the circumstances.He's a far greater man than Lynn can ever aspire to be.

Jimmy Carter did not have the courage to fix the economy nor to dealwith the enemies of the USA. One of the first things that Ronald Reagandid was to get rid of the classification system for "old oil" and "newoil". Within 24 months, the USA was awash in new oil and natural gassources. The prices of both crashed in the early 1980s, I know this, Iwas there looking for a job with thousands of other engineering graduates.

Nor did Jimmy Carter have the courage to deal properly with Iran. Lookat Ross Perot, he hired mercenaries to go retrieve his hundreds ofpeople from within Iran and was mostly successful. For those who do notknow, Ross Perot's people were setting up a Social Security system inIran for the Shah of Iran. Jimmy Carter could not even give themilitary adequate resources to retrieve our hostages.

Until Barrack Hussein Obama, Jimmy Carter was our worst president ever.Being the president of the USA is all about leadership and Jimmy Cartersadly lacks that. He is a great humanitarian though.

President Carter inherited a s****** economy, an incipient externally imposedenergy crisis, the shell of the post-vietnam military complete with incompetentleadership, and his predecessor's unfortunate meddling in the middle east.He did the best he could (and certainly better than his prececessors would have)given the circumstances.He's a far greater man than Lynn can ever aspire to be.

President Carter inherited a s****** economy, an incipient externally imposedenergy crisis, the shell of the post-vietnam military complete with incompetentleadership, and his predecessor's unfortunate meddling in the middle east.He did the best he could (and certainly better than his prececessors would have)given the circumstances.He's a far greater man than Lynn can ever aspire to be.

Jimmy Carter did not have the courage to fix the economy nor to deal

baseless accusations elided.See, aside from eliding your inaccuracies about his engineering background,you're attempting to convey your opinions as facts.The idea that a lack of courage was the problem is, to put it kindly,incorrect.

Wow, delusional. The proof is in the facts. I did not even go into theincompetent Department of Energy.

Reply and make more baseless accusations all you want, this conversationis over for me. Your inability to deal with the truth is amazing.

President Carter inherited a s****** economy, an incipient externally imposedenergy crisis, the shell of the post-vietnam military complete with incompetentleadership, and his predecessor's unfortunate meddling in the middle east.He did the best he could (and certainly better than his prececessors would have)given the circumstances.He's a far greater man than Lynn can ever aspire to be.

Jimmy Carter did not have the courage to fix the economy nor to deal

baseless accusations elided.See, aside from eliding your inaccuracies about his engineering background,you're attempting to convey your opinions as facts.The idea that a lack of courage was the problem is, to put it kindly,incorrect.

Wow, delusional. The proof is in the facts. I did not even go into theincompetent Department of Energy.

You haven't pointed to any facts, just your opinions. When you actuallypost some facts, we can discuss them.

FWIW, your ranking of the worse presidents doesn't match that of theprofessionals.

President Carter inherited a s****** economy, an incipient externally imposedenergy crisis, the shell of the post-vietnam military complete with incompetentleadership, and his predecessor's unfortunate meddling in the middle east.He did the best he could (and certainly better than his prececessors would have)given the circumstances.He's a far greater man than Lynn can ever aspire to be.

Jimmy Carter did not have the courage to fix the economy nor to deal

baseless accusations elided.See, aside from eliding your inaccuracies about his engineering background,you're attempting to convey your opinions as facts.The idea that a lack of courage was the problem is, to put it kindly,incorrect.

Wow, delusional. The proof is in the facts. I did not even go into theincompetent Department of Energy.

You haven't pointed to any facts, just your opinions. When you actuallypost some facts, we can discuss them.FWIW, your ranking of the worse presidents doesn't match that of theprofessionals.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States(In which President Carter (and President Obama) significantly outrank President George WBush; Carter outranks Coolidge, Harding and Hoover, all Republicans).Trump, of course, is at the very bottom of the list.

Those lists are made of academics biased against free marketers,else Coolidge would be miles ahead.

I forgot to slag that racist, anti-civil liberites warmongerWoodrow Wilson, who didn't even have the class to resign whenhe was too sick to do the job.* He's a favorite of the statistprofessoriate.

* Resegregated Federal employment, income tax, Federal Reserve,started Prohibition as a "wartime measure" before the drys inhis party could pass the Volsted Act over his veto, The Palmer Raids,signed the Harriosn Act, presided over a 3-year recession. Quixoticattempt to get his 14 points accepted at Versailles, contributing tothe bad peace that gave rise to the Nazis.

And I think it's widely accepted that he's been the greatest of the recentEX-Presidents...

Dave, though Obama continues to accumulate awesome-rating

--\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flowerIt's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to seeLove is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

Oh, be fair. Andrew Johnson sucked. James Buchanan sucked.Polk got a lot done, but picking a fight with Mexico wasnot exactly our shining moment. Harding had corruptionall through his advisers, and either was clueless about it orknew full well what was going on and did nothing. Pre-WarFDR was awful. Roosevelt II was a pretty decent war president,though, except for being taken in by Stalin.

Neither Obama nor Carter were as bad as all that.

Post by Lynn McGuireBeing the president of the USA is all about leadership and Jimmy Cartersadly lacks that. He is a great humanitarian though.

Some of his ex-presidential foreign policy meddlingI could have done without.

President Carter inherited a s****** economy, an incipient externally imposedenergy crisis, the shell of the post-vietnam military complete with incompetentleadership, and his predecessor's unfortunate meddling in the middle east.He did the best he could (and certainly better than his prececessors would have)given the circumstances.He's a far greater man than Lynn can ever aspire to be.

Jimmy Carter did not have the courage to fix the economy nor to dealwith the enemies of the USA. One of the first things that Ronald Reagandid was to get rid of the classification system for "old oil" and "newoil". Within 24 months, the USA was awash in new oil and natural gassources. The prices of both crashed in the early 1980s, I know this, Iwas there looking for a job with thousands of other engineering graduates.

Post by Lynn McGuireFor those who do notknow, Ross Perot's people were setting up a Social Security system inIran for the Shah of Iran.

Yes, and a couple of them were arrested for alleged corruptionThere were also problems with the implementation (the new system was slower to complete the process than the old way)...Note that this occurred under the Shah who was a US ally.

Post by Lynn McGuireJimmy Carter could not even give themilitary adequate resources to retrieve our hostages.

Getting into a secured location in a foreign country and getting out with 52 hostages is a rather different situation from picking up 2 people from the streets after somebody else has already broken them out.

The actual forces committed were93 delta soldiers13 special forces soldiers12 rangers15 people who spoke the local language and were largely going to be truck drivers.

8 helicopters for transport12 USAF planes

The plan was generated by the military and aborted when hardware failures happened and 8 helicopters was reduced to 5 with a near certainty of more losses.

After this the hostages were separated and the requirements became completely impractical.Almost a battalion of troups, over 50 aircraft and all sorts of new approaches were being developed.

Post by Lynn McGuireUntil Barrack Hussein Obama, Jimmy Carter was our worst president ever.Being the president of the USA is all about leadership and Jimmy Cartersadly lacks that. He is a great humanitarian though.

Post by Lynn McGuireUntil Barrack Hussein Obama, Jimmy Carter was our worst president ever.Being the president of the USA is all about leadership and Jimmy Cartersadly lacks that. He is a great humanitarian though.

Nice to see that you don't consider ignoring a supreme court decision and indulging in genocide of native americans to justify a lower rating...

Post by o***@gmail.comI find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.All that is required is an absence of guilt.

For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vastresponsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President ofthe United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as thatis even possible, of course.That is a distinction that seems lost on some.John Savard

In an atmosphere of no consequences for unsubstantiated allegations -- sometimes being viewed as heroic -- those standards, sadly, no longer exist.

We've seen what happens to an honest man in the White House. JimmyCarter lasted one term and accomplished little that had any lastingeffect.

He didn't fail because he was honest.He failed because he was ignorant and condescending.

I never found Carter to be either. He knew how to grow peanuts, run anuclear reactor, and conduct a successful political campaign. That isnot an ignorant person. And I do not recall him ever being"condescending". He tried too hard to go the other way sometimes. Andhe lacked a certain forcefulness that is sometimes needed.

It is my understanding that Jimmy Carter does not know how to run anuclear reactor. He was the last of the diesel electric submarinecaptains. Three Mile Island happened on his presidential watch and hehad people investigate it. He did not finish nuclear reactor school.

Jimmy Carter was never a "Captain" in any sense, and nuke school was 6months--he started in March and would have been done in August, whilehe left the Navy in October. He was also hands-on involved with acleanup of a nuclear meltdown.

Post by Alan Baker'Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that thePresident committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'Do you accept that that is a direct quote from the Mueller report?

But because "innocent until proven guilty", that *is*exoneration. Donald Trump said so himself!

I realize the sheeple of Canada don't really understand the conceptof constitutional rights, but in the US, we do.

I'm not saying that Donald Trump should be thrown in jail, or even impeached,merely because he can't prove himself innocent, if that is how you understood mypost.That the Muller report did not have conclusive proof of illegal activity topresent, however, does not imply that a proper criminal investigation would beunable to do so. Even if it does reduce the probability that one would find suchevidence. Thus, I fail to see that the term "exonerate" applies.John Savard

As pointed out in the transcript of Mueller's statement, he justifies some of his non-charging and non-exoneration from the special constitutional position of the President

"The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge."

(End quote)In the context of this, I think it is illuminating that there have been no charges against co-conspirators. There is no equivalent of the Watergate Seven. If Trump _is_ guilty of anything, such as obstruction of justice, it can only be a very limited action, because it is the action of one man (albeit a President) who apparently could not get a single person to conspire with him.

It's also one of the few highlights of the report - a shot across the bows of anybody who might think themselves shielded by the office of the President - the President might be shielded to some extent, but nobody else in that office is.

Post by m***@sky.comIt's also one of the few highlights of the report - a shot across the bows ofanybody who might think themselves shielded by the office of the President -the President might be shielded to some extent, but nobody else in thatoffice is.

And even if they were somehow, the turnover rate for non-relatives of Trump"in that office" has been astounding.

Dave, as has the deluge of after-serving tell-all books

--\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flowerIt's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to seeLove is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who wasconvinced that the moon landings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that Ireally needed to start watching Glenn Beck.So...draw your own conclusions.

I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worthwatching.

There's loonier out there.

True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not beworth taking seriously.

Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all.Stupid is just as good a reason.

It is, indeed, quite funny, how the Democrats will not seethe inside of the White House for at least a generation,due entirely to their own deranged mental condition.

Riiiiight.And the Mueller report "completely exonerated" Trump, too!

As, in fact, it did, yet. You're hallucinating otherwise, asyou were told to by your masters.

No, actually.

Your masters told you to say that.

'Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that thePresident committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'Do you accept that that is a direct quote from the Muellerreport?

From you, no I do not. In fact, that you claim it is is very nearlyconclusive proof that it isn't, since literally everything you postis lies.

Are you willing to agree that Lynn was right in his claims thatthere are tens of millions of illegals in the US, and tends ofthousand more come here every month?--Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider thanLynn:https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United Statesillegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who wasconvinced that the moon landings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that Ireally needed to start watching Glenn Beck.So...draw your own conclusions.

I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worthwatching.

There's loonier out there.

True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not beworth taking seriously.

Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all.Stupid is just as good a reason.

It is, indeed, quite funny, how the Democrats will not seethe inside of the White House for at least a generation,due entirely to their own deranged mental condition.

Riiiiight.And the Mueller report "completely exonerated" Trump, too!

As, in fact, it did, yet. You're hallucinating otherwise, asyou were told to by your masters.

No, actually.

Your masters told you to say that.

'Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that thePresident committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'Do you accept that that is a direct quote from the Muellerreport?

From you, no I do not. In fact, that you claim it is is very nearlyconclusive proof that it isn't, since literally everything you postis lies.

Read it and weep:

Page 214:

'Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of thefacts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legalstandards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidencewe obtained about the President?s actions and intent presents dif?cultissues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminalconduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude thatthe President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'

Post by BiceAbout 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced that the moonlandings were fake.He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really needed to startwatching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own conclusions.

Post by a425couplefromhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/25/yes-the-apollo-moon-landings-really-did-happen/#209129b56a8f

Nope,......Fake news also said that Hitlery was going to win the election.

Here's a video for you to watch, and think about. Maybe you can figure itout for youself.Or you can continue to let "globalist big brother" tell you what to thinkMoon Hoax - Faking Spacehttp://youtu.be/KmQIAH3UftQ